Part single, part two storey rear extension, involving demolition of existing conservatory, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref P0742.24, dated 19 July 2024

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 December 2025 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000491 56 Beltinge Road, Romford, Havering RM3 0UJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mrs Hafiza Qaisera Tariq against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0615.25. • The application sought planning permission for part single, part two storey rear extension, involving demolition of existing conservatory, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref P0742.24, dated 19 July 2024. • The condition in dispute is No 3 which states that: “The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans (as set out on page one of this decision notice).” • The reason given for the condition is: “For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for variation of condition No. 3 of planning permission ref: P0742.24 dated 19/07/24 to permit a decrease of spacing at first floor extension to the neighbouring property at No. 58 Beltinge Road at 56 Beltinge Road, Romford, Havering RM3 0UJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0615.25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Background and Main Issue 2. In my above decision, I have taken the description of development from the section 73 decision notice rather than the application form. This accurately describes the proposal. I have determined the appeal accordingly, as this would not prejudice interested parties. 3. Planning permission was granted on 19 July 2024 (“the original planning permission”) for a part single, part two storey rear extension following demolition of a conservatory. At the time of my site visit, this did not appear to have been implemented. The appellant seeks to vary condition No 3 to allow an amended first floor rear extension. 4. Having regard to the officer report and decision notice, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of No 58 Beltinge Road, with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision 6000491 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site (No 56) comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling facing Beltinge Road. Properties either side are semi-detached and have similar sized long rear gardens. 6. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Adopted 2011) advises at paragraphs 5.13-5.14 that two storey rear extensions should be set in from the common boundary with any attached dwelling by not less than 2 metres, and should project no more than 3 metres. An equivalent degree of amenity should be secured for the neighbouring dwelling on the non-attached boundary, both in terms of the existing house and rear garden and the ability to build an extension in line with this SPD. 7. The Council already applied some flexibility to the above guidance in granting the original planning permission, to account for the specific neighbouring layout of No 58. The officer report indicates that the current proposed rear extension would be sited 0.8m from the side boundary with No 58 and 1.6m from this neighbouring dwelling, which is detached from No 56. 8. Although the proposal would be visible from No 58’s rear patio and garden area, its depth at two-storey level would be 2.8m, and the pitched roof would be of shallow slope and hipped to the rear. This would noticeably mitigate the visual impact when viewed from No 58’s rear private space. This neighbour’s single storey rear outshot avoids an adverse impact on outlook from the openings within this outshot. The proposed first floor plan also indicates that that this two-storey projection would not breach a line of sight from the mid-point of the nearest first floor rear elevation window of No 58 at an angle of 45 degrees towards the proposed extension. 9. I accept that the current proposal would lead to an increased sense of enclosure. However, for the above reasons, this would not amount to an adverse intrusive or overbearing effect. 10. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of current and future occupiers of No 58 in terms of outlook. The scheme therefore complies with Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (Adopted 2021) which requires, amongst other things, residential development to not adversely impact the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents. Other Matters 11. The site orientation would avoid an adverse loss of light to the rear patio and garden of No 58 and to its side and rear elevation windows, despite its internal kitchen layout not being open plan. The proposed projection beyond the single storey rear extension of the attached dwelling of No 54 to the other side would be minimal and further limited by the proposed single storey flat roof form. This would avoid an adverse degree of loss of outlook and light, including winter sun received by No 54’s kitchen. I do not envisage that impacts arising from noise and cooking smells would go beyond what is typically experienced in suburban areas. Conditions 12. Condition 1 is necessary to specify the time limit for the development, for clarity. Condition 2 is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 3 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. Appeal Decision 6000491 3 13. Condition 4 is necessary to restrict the formation of windows on the side walls of the approved extension facing No 54 and No 58, in the interests of living conditions. The Council also suggested a condition preventing the approved roof being used as a balcony or similar amenity area. As this condition forms part of the original planning permission, I have reimposed it as Condition 5. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. R Cahalane INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted must be commenced not later than the date of the planning permission ref: P0742.24 (i.e. not later than 19 July 2024). 2. All new external finishes shall be carried out in materials to match those of the existing building(s) to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos 0605/02; 0605/03; 0605/05; and 0605/07. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the submitted and approved plan,) shall be formed in the flank wall(s) of the building(s) hereby permitted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. 5. The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. ***End of Schedule***