Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2025 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000519 12 Greenock Way, Romford, Havering RM1 4RT • 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 Sarah Jenkins against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is PO447.25. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of No 11 Greenock Way with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site (No 12) s a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. Properties either side are semi-detached, with similar plot widths and relatively long rear gardens. 4. The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted 2011) sets out that as a general rule, houses can be extended from the rear wall of the original dwelling by up to 4 metres in depth for a semi-detached dwelling. Any greater depth required should be within an angle of 45 degrees, taken from the 4 metre dimension on the property boundary, to ensure that a reasonable level of amenity is afforded to neighbouring properties. 5. Contrary to the above SPD guidance, the proposed rear extension would extend to a maximum depth of 6m and alongside the rear garden side boundary with the adjoining dwelling of No 11 Greenock Way, which has not been extended to the rear. This SPD is postdated by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“the GPDO”). 6. The SPD however seeks to maintain a reasonable outlook from adjoining properties. In this regard, this guidance reflects Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (HLP) (adopted 2021) which requires, amongst other things, residential development to not adversely impact the amenity and quality of life of existing and future residents, including by avoiding unacceptable loss of outlook. I therefore do not view the abovementioned SPD guidance to be out of date in respect of this matter, and I find it to be a useful reference in assessing such effects. 7. No 11’s largest ground floor rear elevation window is near to the rear garden side boundary with No 12. The proposed extension’s flat roof would protrude noticeably Appeal Decision 6000519 2 above the existing side boundary screening and would project significantly beyond this neighbouring window. I anticipate that the resultant impact on this window and the adjacent patio area beyond it would appear and feel oppressive and overbearing. The extent of this impact would significantly harm the living conditions of current and future occupiers of No 11 in terms of outlook. 8. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with Policy 7 of the HLP, the relevant requirements of which are already set out above. It also conflicts with the relevant purposes and aims of the SPD as also set out above. Other Matters 9. The evidence before me indicates that the proposal’s depth would ordinarily be within the GPDO’s permitted development (PD) limits for a larger home extension, subject to certain stipulations and procedures1. In refusing a previous prior approval application for No 12, the Council viewed such an extension as not falling within the legislative limitations expressed in the GPDO, due to No 12’s original rear elevation layout. Whilst that outcome could be described as a “letter of the law” technicality, determining PD is ultimately a question of law in which the decision-maker has no discretion. A PD fallback therefore does not exist to justify the appeal proposal. 10. It is also put to me that the appeal proposal would have no greater impact on No 11 than the extension recently built to the rear of No.13 Greenock Way. No 13’s extension is however set away from the side boundary of No 12, and the submitted evidence indicates that the dwelling adjoining No 13 has been extended to the rear. For these reasons, No 13’s extension does not justify allowing the appeal scheme. 11. Reference is also made to planning records indicating that some 15 of the Greenock Way houses have been extended by way of planning permissions or PD. The specific details of these examples are not before me but in any event, they would have turned on their own site-specific characteristics. The lack of harm in respect of appearance, and impacts on daylight and sunlight, are all neutral factors that neither weigh in favour nor against the appeal proposal. Planning Balance 12. I accept that letters were sent to neighbouring properties as part of the consultation process for the appeal proposal, and no comments were received. I afford some weight in favour of the lack of explicit objection raised by No 11 and other adjoining sites. The proposal would also replace a relatively small and narrow kitchen. However, HLP Policy 7 governs the quality of life of both existing and future residents, and the extent of harm I have identified that would be caused to No 11’s outlook outweighs the above matters. Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. R Cahalane INSPECTOR 1 As set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the GPDO