Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000471 62 Fairview Avenue, Rainham, Havering RM13 9RP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Richard Dennis and Mrs Charlotte Dennis against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0633.25. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘Loft conversion’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable loft conversion with front and rear dormers, gable end window and roof lights to front at 62 Fairview Avenue, Rainham, Havering RM13 9RP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0633.25, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing nos: SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 1) SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 2), and SDE 007-04-25 (Sheet 3). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) Prior to the first use/occupation of the first floor bedroom accommodation, details of the obscure glazing and degree of opening for the window serving the landing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 3. Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council’s decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as ‘Hip to gable loft conversion with front and rear dormers, gable end window and roof lights to front’. I am satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the appellant in using this description since it essentially explains what works the ‘loft conversion’ entails. Appeal Decision 6000471 2 4. The Council has not objected to the hip to gable loft conversion, the rear dormer or the roof lights to the front. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focuses on the effect of the front dormer on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site comprises a single-storey detached dwelling in a residential area. Fairview Avenue features a linear arrangement and eclectic mix of dwelling types and sizes, with a number having been altered and extended. 6. When considered cumulatively with the other elements of the proposal, the front dormer would result in an increase in the scale and mass of the existing dwelling, but its design would remain sympathetic to the host property. It would not span the full width of the roof or project above the ridge. It would also have a pitched roof. The use of matching materials would assimilate with, and complement, the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Consequently, it would not appear as a visually dominant feature within the front roof slope. 7. There are a number of dormers of varying styles, sizes and positions in the street, as well as some front ones in Briscoe Road, Lake Avenue, Abbey Wood Lane, Upminister Road North, King Edward Avenue. Given the absence of a single, clearly defined dormer style, the proposed dormer in this case would not appear incongruous or conspicuously out of keeping within the wider context. 8. The Havering London Borough Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) advises that dormer windows should be well contained within the body of the roof, set back from the eaves and positioned well in from the gable ends. It further states that dormers fronting the highway should incorporate pitched roofs and should not exceed 1.2 metres in width, with the width also not exceeding the height. Whilst the proposed front dormer would not strictly comply with all parts of SPD, this document provides guidance rather than policy. In this instance, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme would be broadly consistent with the overall objective of ensuring developments are well designed and appropriate to their setting and context. 9. Overall, the front dormer would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would accord with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) which seeks high quality design. Furthermore, it would accord with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in respect of achieving well-designed places. Conditions 10. Conditions relating to the commencement of development and for works to be in accordance with approved plans are necessary for clarity and certainty. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition requiring the external materials of the extensions to match those used in the existing building is necessary. A condition relating to the use of obscure glazing to the second floor landing gable window is necessary to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6000471 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above the appeal would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR