Part single, part two storey side/rear extension following demolition of detached garage (Retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2025 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2025. Appeal Ref: 6000402 78 Squirrels Heath Road, Romford RM3 0LT • 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 Saroj Kumar Ramya Patro against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P1313.24. • The development proposed is part single, part two storey side/rear extension following demolition of detached garage (Retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single, part two-storey side/rear extension following demolition of detached garage at 78 Squirrels Heath Road, Romford RM3 0LT, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P1313.24, and the plans numbered: PL05 B, PL06, PL07; subject to the following condition: 1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other opening shall be constructed on the flank walls of the development, other than those expressly authorised by this permission. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately reflects the proposal. However, the term “retrospective” has been omitted from the formal decision as it does not describe an act of development. 3. As the application was retrospective, I was able to assess the development as built. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; • the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 76 and 80 Squirrels Heath Road, with particular regard to outlook and light. Appeal Decision 6000402 2 Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property forms one half of a pair of semi-detached houses with matching two-storey front projections. The surrounding area features a mix of architectural styles and extensions, contributing to a varied residential streetscape. 6. The Council raised concerns about the side extension’s forward projection, cropped eaves, and lack of a visual break from the main ridge, considering it visually intrusive and unbalancing. However, a previous hip-to-gable roof extension had already disrupted the original symmetry of the pair. The current proposal, with its hipped roof design, reintroduces a degree of symmetry with No 76, mitigating the previous imbalance at roof level. 7. While the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD) advises that roof extensions should be set down from the main ridge, in this instance the dominant front projection of the host dwelling effectively breaks up the mass of the extended roof. The smaller forward projection forming part of the side extension is clearly subservient, being set down and back from the main projection, and replicates its roof form and detailing. Its limited projection beyond the main front wall is not visually prominent due to its position behind the larger projection. Matching materials further integrate the extension with the host dwelling. 8. The cropped eaves are mostly screened by the larger forward projection and No 80, and I noted similar features on other nearby properties, including Nos 61a and 63 immediately opposite. The design also facilitates the retention of an appreciable gap to the side boundary to prevent any perceived terracing effect with No 80. 9. No design objections were raised regarding the single-storey rear extension. I have no reason to disagree, particularly as it is well screened from public vantage points. 10. Overall, the development does not materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. It therefore complies with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2021 (the HLP), which seeks high-quality design that respects local context and character. Living conditions 11. The SPD advises that semi-detached houses may be extended at the rear by up to 4 metres with a flat roof no higher than 3 metres. 12. In this case, the single-storey rear extension projects 6 metres along the common boundary with No 76. It features a stepped roof profile comprising a mono-pitched section reaching approximately 3.95 metres at its highest point, transitioning into a flat roof of 3 metres in height for the remaining half of its length. 13. Although this exceeds SPD guidance in some respects, the stepped profile and single-storey height reduce its bulk and visual impact. No 76 benefits from a relatively large rear garden and a southerly aspect. The extension occupies only a small proportion of the boundary, preserving a spacious outlook and ensuring no significant loss of daylight or overshadowing. Appeal Decision 6000402 3 14. Regarding No 80, the Council noted that the extensions project over 6 metres beyond the nearest ground floor window and over 2 metres at first floor. However, the side extension is set in from the boundary and does not breach a 45-degree line drawn from the nearest first-floor window, preserving light and outlook. The ground floor window serves a utility room, and the modest height of the rear extension, its separation from the boundary, partial screening by the fence, and the site’s southern orientation mitigate any adverse impact on light and outlook. 15. Accordingly, the development does not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 76 and 80 Squirrels Heath Road, with particular regard to outlook and light. It therefore complies with Policy 7 of the HLP, which seeks to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 16. While retrospective applications may raise concerns and frustrations among neighbours, the planning system permits such applications to be made, which must be assessed on their planning merits. The retrospective nature of the development is not, in itself, grounds for refusal. 17. Alleged damage caused during construction is a civil matter and falls outside the scope of this planning appeal. Such issues may be pursued through appropriate legal channels. Conditions 18. As the development has already been carried out, the standard time limit condition is not necessary. The approved plans are listed in the formal decision. As suggested by the Council, a condition restricting new openings in the flank elevations is imposed to protect neighbouring privacy. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. A Caines INSPECTOR