Construction of a garage to front forecourt with alterations to front gates and fence/wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2025 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000716 41 Parkstone Avenue, Hornchurch RM11 3LN • 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 D. Johal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0894.25. • The development proposed is described as “construction of a garage to front forecourt with alterations to front gates and fence/wall”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “construction of a garage to front forecourt with alterations to front gates and fence/wall” at 41 Parkstone Avenue, Hornchurch RM11 3LN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0894.25, 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 the following approved plans: Location and Block Plans 25/1004/PL-1, Proposed Front Fence Plan 25/1004/PL-3, Proposed Front Fence Elevations 25/1004/PL-4 and Proposed Garage Elevations and Roof Plan 25/1004/PL- 5. 3) The garage shall not be first used until a scheme of soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the location and species of planting. All elements of the scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details. All work shall be completed before the end of the first available planting season following practical completion of the development hereby permitted. Any shrubs, plants or trees that, within five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced with other species, size and number as originally approved, unless consent is given to any variation through being agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Appeal Decision 6000716 2 Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site occupies a notably wide and deep plot within an attractive, open, and verdant residential area. It is positioned among plots of a similar scale, where many of the dwellings have been rebuilt or undergone significant extensions and alterations over time. Extensive areas of hardstanding are evident across many front gardens to accommodate off-street parking, and this forms part of the established character of the area. Consequently, the street scene is made up of a varied mix of dwelling sizes and architectural forms. Boundary treatments are also diverse, with substantial brick walls and railings being a common feature, contributing to a streetscape of considerable presence and scale. 5. The proposed garage, featuring a shallow pitched flat roof, would be constructed using materials that complement both the substantial dwelling currently under construction and the proposed boundary wall, ensuring visual cohesion across the site. It would be read against the backdrop of the large dwelling, which would remain the dominant element. Its design, incorporating glazed sections, would reduce the perception of bulk and introduce a lighter, more transparent quality. Any reflections from these elements would add visual interest rather than contribute to massing, allowing the structure to sit comfortably within its context. While its forward position would make it noticeable, this would be mitigated by the mixed and varied streetscape, which lacks a uniform building line. Furthermore, the incorporation of appropriate landscaping between the proposed garage and the boundary wall would soften its presence and add to the verdant qualities of the street scene. 6. The boundary wall and railings, although substantial, would not appear out of keeping with the existing pattern of development and would be read alongside similar structures within the street scene. The railed gates would provide a degree of openness and visual permeability, allowing views through to the dwelling and mitigate any perceived impact of their substance. 7. The proposals, therefore, would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding area and would not conflict with Policy 26 of Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) and guidance contained in the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). Amongst other things, these require new development to respond to distinctive local building forms and patterns of development with respect to established scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding physical context. Conditions 8. In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have set out a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved Appeal Decision 6000716 3 plans for enforcement purposes. As they provide details of the materials there is no need for a further condition thereon. A condition is also necessary to secure a soft landscaping scheme between the garage and the boundary treatment, in accordance with the appellant’s stated intentions and to ensure a high-quality integrated appearance. The scheme shall be set out prior to the first use of the garage and carried out during the first available planting season following completion. It should be required to be thereafter maintained for a specified period to secure its effectiveness. 9. Regarding the suggested condition concerning the use of the garage, I have no evidence before me to suggest that such would be necessary or reasonable given the proposed development is clearly for the garaging of vehicles in association with the dwelling. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR