Loft conversion, creating two beds and a WC. Pergola at rear Ground floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000562 41 Eastern Avenue East, Romford RM14SB • 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 Andre Cardozo against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0650.25. • The development proposed is ‘Loft conversion, creating two beds and a WC. Pergola at rear Ground floor’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Loft conversion, creating two beds and a WC. Pergola at rear Ground floor’ at 41 Eastern Avenue East, Romford RM14SB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0650.25, 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 drawing numbers: Proposed Block Plan - 201 Revision A; Proposed Floor Plans – 202 Revision A; Proposed Loft and Roof Plans 203 - Revision A; Proposed Front and Rear Elevations – 204 Revision A; Proposed Right and Left Elevations – 205 Revision A; Proposed Sections - 206 Revision A; Proposed 3D Views Front and Rear - 207 Revision A. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area. Reasons 3. The appeal site includes a two-storey terraced dwelling with a rear garden. I understand the property was originally semi-detached which was extended to the side and then separated from the former host building. The proposal includes a dormer roof extension to facilitate a loft conversion as well as a pergola to the rear and a rooflight to the front pitch. The Council does not take issue with the latter two elements, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, I will focus my assessment on the roof extension. 4. My attention is drawn to the Council’s ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD), although the Council has not Appeal Decision 6000562 2 provided a copy. This evidently advises that dormers should be contained well within the body of the roof by being set well back from the eaves and by setting the sides well in from any gables or party walls. 5. The dormer would have a set down from the host ridge, particularly as it is stepped at the chimney, as well as being set in from either side and back from the eaves. The SPD does not elaborate on what ‘well within’ means in practice, but to my mind while the dormer is relatively large, it would not overwhelm the host roof. While the Council refers to symmetry between the semis, the host and adjoining properties are now part of a terrace and the converted dwelling to the side includes a two-storey rear outrigger shared with the host property. As such, this has already changed the host roofscape while I also observed other outriggers and dormers to the rear of adjacent dwellings. Moreover, this would only be discernible from the rear of other properties which would be read as part of the varied local roofscape. 6. Taken together, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or local area. This would accord with policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (adopted November 2021) which seeks to ensure development proposals are informed by and respect the distinctive qualities, character and features of the site and local area. The proposal would also accord with the advice in the SPD. Conditions 7. There are no suggested conditions before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have imposed the standard time commencement, approved plans and matching materials conditions to ensure clarity for all concerned and ensure the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area is protected. Conclusion 8. The proposal would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and advice in the SPD. As such, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions given. C McDonagh INSPECTOR