Double-storey side extension, single-storey front extension and loft conversion involving two front dormers and one rear dormer following demolition of garage and conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000528 22 Hood Road, Rainham, RM13 8AT • 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 Mr Craig Hume against the decision of Havering London Borough Council. • The application Ref is P0530.25. • The development proposed is double-storey side extension, single-storey front extension and loft conversion involving two front dormers and one rear dormer following demolition of garage and conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed loft conversion and rear dormer on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at Nos. 20a and 24 Hood Road and the immediate surrounding properties; ii) the effect of the proposal on sun/daylight, overshadowing and form of development on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at No.20a Hood Road. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a detached bungalow, situated in a predominantly residential area of detached bungalows and two-storey houses of varying architectural styles and periods. At the front of the site is a driveway for off street parking with a garden. To the south is No.24, of 3-storeys by virtue of a wide front dormer window. Its orientation is at 90o to the appeal bungalow because it, and its other 2-storey neighbours, face south-east, whereas No.22 and its neighbours to the north face north-east. Number 24 has a very limited triangular shaped rear garden. To the north of the appeal property are semi-detached bungalows on narrow plots. 4. The appeal bungalow has a hipped pyramidal roof which is proposed to be altered into a half-hip form with the ridge following the line of the frontage. The building would be wider than the existing bungalow due to the demolition of the garage and the addition of a side extension extending beyond the flank of the garage. In the front roof slope would be 2 small hipped roof dormers set well away from the boundaries of the roof, whilst at the rear it is proposed to place a wide flat roofed dormer which would extend to within the half-hip form of the main roof. The extended dwelling would be set 0.9m off the boundary with No.24 and just over 1m off the boundary with No.22a. Appeal Decision 6000528 2 5. I have noted above that the rear garden of No. 24 is in the form of a small triangular space, with the gap at the north corner of the house being just 0.9m to the appeal dwelling. Whilst No.24 itself is a tall structure, the effect of the proposed much enlarged roof and its rear dormer at No.22 would be an over-dominant structure when viewed from its garden and the first-floor rear windows. On the other side, the enlarged roof of the proposal would extend much closer to No.22a, the rear elevation of which is approximately in line with the ridge line of the proposed roof. Bearing in mind that No.22a has a narrow garden, the proposed structure would have an over-bearing and dominant effect on the amenity at the rear of this small bungalow. 6. In addition, the proposal would bring an adverse change to the amount of daylight and sunlight at the rear of No.22a. I have not been provided with any diagrammatic analysis of the extent of this, and I take account of the fact that, being to the north of the appeal dwelling, in the afternoon there would be no detrimental effect. Nevertheless, added to the point made in paragraph 5 above, it would further diminish the living conditions of this neighbour. 7. I appreciate that there are a number of positive attributes of the proposal, recognised in the officer’s report and drawn to my attention in the appellant’s appeal statement. Nevertheless, taking the above matters into account the proposed development would be harmful to neighbouring occupiers, such that it would be against Local plan Policy 7 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR