Loft conversion with rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000508 262 Wennington Road, Rainham RM13 9UU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs June Chanian against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref. is P0494.25. • The development is loft conversion with rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The site is the subject of three separate ongoing enforcement appeals1. These will be the subject of separate decisions. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling which is located within a row of similar properties with modest front gardens set back from the main road by wide pavement and grass verge. The dwellings are of fairly uniform design originally with hipped tiled roofs and front projecting bay windows with small hipped roof over. A number of other dwellings within the row have been extended to the side and rear. 5. The extensions at the appeal site have already been completed and comprise a gable roof addition to what was an existing hipped roof over a previous two-storey side extension together with large flat roofed dormer across the width of the extended rear roof and rooflights to the front roofslope. 6. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (2011) (SPD) states that the symmetry of semi-detached houses and the spacing between the pairs are important considerations, requiring side extensions to be subordinate so as to maintain this symmetry as far as possible. It appears that the previous two storey side extension was permitted prior to the adoption of the SPD and did not include a set-back nor was the roof set down to provide subordination and maintain the 1 APP/B5480/C/25/3369942, 3369943, 3369944 Appeal Decision 6000508 2 symmetry of the semi-detached pair. The submitted plans show that it was flush with the front elevation of the original dwelling and extended up to the side boundary with hipped roof extended over to reflect the style of the original roof. 7. Notwithstanding the size and design of the previous two-storey extension, the introduction of a gable end has added further bulk to the roof and has had the effect of visually ‘closing the gap’ to the side boundary with the adjacent property, No. 264, at roof level. This has resulted in the roof form becoming an overly dominant feature in the street scene, further unbalancing the appearance of the semi- detached pair and introducing a poorly designed and incongruous addition that does not reflect the appearance and character of the neighbouring row of dwellings. 8. To the rear, the flat-roofed dormer that has been added extends across the whole width of the rear extended roofslope and up to the ridge height with only a very small gap retained to the eaves. This has resulted virtually the whole of the extended rear roofslope being obscured. The addition is both unduly large and dominating as viewed in the rear garden environment and fails to respect the style and appearance of the host dwelling, notwithstanding that only the side ‘cheek’ of the dormer is readily visible within the street scene. The SPD advises that dormers should be well contained within the body of the roof by being set well back from the eaves, set in from the side gable or any party walls and well below the ridge line. The rear dormer does not adhere to any of these guidelines. 9. I noted on my site visit that a number of nearby properties have been extended to the side and rear. However, in all cases the side extension is set back from the front elevation, rather than flush with it as on the appeal site, and predominantly use hipped roof forms. Gable ends have been introduced to some dwellings as an extension of the original hipped roof but not as part of a side extension as on the appeal site. Whilst these do appear to have resulted in some unbalancing of the semi-detached pairs, they remain in scale with their overall size and maintain a gap to the side boundary and thus are not comparable to the roof extensions that have been undertaken at the appeal site. 10. Overall, I find that the extensions have had a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the semi-detached pair of which it is a part, and the wider street scene. The development therefore fails to accord with Policy 26 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) and Policy D4 of The London Plan 2021 which, amongst other things, seek high quality design which complements the original dwelling and is fully integrated with neighbouring development. It also fails to satisfy the guidance within the SPD as set out above. 11. Furthermore, for the reasons above, the development does not satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to achieve good design and development that is adds to the overall quality of the area and is sympathetic to local character. Whilst I acknowledge that the extensions provide enhanced accommodation for the appellant this does not outweigh the harm identified above. Conclusion 12. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR