Ground floor single storey wrap around extension & first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2026 by SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005267 6 Altmore Avenue, East Ham, Newham, London E6 2BY • 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 Muhammad Sajood & Sanaa Khalil & Sajood against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application Ref is 25/02648/HH. • The development proposed is ground floor single storey wrap around extension & first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council’s decision notice includes a reference to the proposal affecting the setting of the East Ham Town Centre Conservation Area (CA) and is also headed as relating to a hazardous substances consent. However, the appeal before me concerns a householder planning application for extensions to a dwelling and the Council’s delegated report and evidence before me confirms that the appeal property is not within the CA. I have determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling on the eastern side of Altmore Avenue. It has an original two-storey rear outrigger, paired with a matching outrigger at 4 Altmore Avenue. Although there is some variation to the rear elevations, particularly at ground-floor level, the rear of this part of the terrace remains dominated by the repeated rhythm of two-storey outriggers. At first-floor level, these outriggers form a broadly regular rear building line. 5. While rear elevations of a dwelling are often not prominent in public views, they can make an important contribution to the character and appearance of an area, particularly where there is a discernible pattern of development. In this case, the repeating form of the two storey outriggers gives the rear of the terrace a clear visual rhythm and balance, making a meaningful contribution to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the terrace as a whole. Appeal Decision 6005267 2 6. The proposal includes a ground floor single-storey wrap-around rear extension and a first-floor rear extension. The Council did not object to the ground floor single- storey element in isolation. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I find no reason to reach a different view. 7. The proposed first-floor rear extension would extend the existing outrigger outwards beyond the established first-floor rear building line. I recognise that the Council’s Altering and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (the SPD) does not require rigid uniformity and that domestic properties can reasonably evolve over time. However, it seeks extensions that are sympathetic, proportionate and subordinate to the host dwelling and responsive to their context. 8. The additional projection at first floor level would be relatively limited when viewed in isolation, however its position and the combined depth, bulk and massing of the enlarged outrigger would result in a noticeably more dominant rear projection than currently exists. Given the relatively consistent rhythm of rear outriggers along this row, the proposal would appear as an overly dominant addition. It would interrupt the visual balance of the pair of dwellings and the wider terrace and would fail to read as a subordinate extension which respects the established rear form of the dwelling and its immediate context. 9. I accept that the extension would not be prominent in public views. However, the private rear aspect forms part of the character of the terrace and contains a clear and legible pattern of development. The incongruous form of the enlarged outrigger would be particularly apparent from neighbouring rear gardens and rear-facing windows, from where the rear elevation and terrace pattern would be experienced. 10. I have taken account of the appellant’s points that the extension would be limited to the width of the existing outrigger, would retain a mono-pitched roof form, would not exceed the existing ridge or eaves height of the outrigger, and would use matching materials. These factors would reduce the degree of visual impact. However, they would not overcome the harm arising from the scale, massing and projection of the first-floor extension, particularly its incongruous relationship with the established rear building line and repeated rear form of the terrace. 11. The appellant has referred to similar development approved at 12 Gower Road. I have had regard to the plans and aerial information provided. However, that property is some distance from the appeal site and is not within the same terrace or immediate townscape context. I also have limited information regarding the Council’s reasoning and the precise circumstances of that decision. While consistency in decision-making is important, it does not require the same outcome where site circumstances and planning judgements differ based on the evidence provided. I have determined this appeal on its own planning merits, and, from my observations, the proposal would disrupt the established rear building line and visual rhythm of the Altmore Avenue terrace. The previous approval therefore does not lead me to a different conclusion. 12. The appellant has also referred to other permissions elsewhere in the Borough. However, full details of those schemes, including their site context, approved drawings and decision reasoning, have not been provided. I have therefore attached limited weight to those examples. In any case, the appeal must be determined on its own planning merits, and the cited examples do not alter my findings on harm in this Altmore Avenue context. Appeal Decision 6005267 3 13. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policies SP1 and SP3 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan -A 15 year plan looking ahead to 2033 (2018), which require, amongst other things, development to achieve a high quality of urban design, respond to local character, and reinforce positive local distinctiveness and coherence with local context. It would also conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance contained within the SPD. 14. The Council’s decision notice makes a generic reference to the London Plan (2021) (LP). The appellant specifically refers to Policy D3 of the LP. I have had regard to that policy, which seeks high-quality design that responds to local context. Given my findings regarding the harmful relationship of the proposed first-floor rear extension to the established rear form and character of the terrace, the proposal would not accord with the design objectives of Policy D3 of the LP. Other Matters 15. The appellant highlights that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The Council did not refuse the application on that basis and, from the evidence before me, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. However, the absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or conflict with other policies is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 16. The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application, including alleged procedural shortcomings in the decision-making process. I have taken these submissions into account insofar as they are relevant to the planning merits of the appeal. However, no application for an award of costs is before me. In any event, the identified errors have not influenced my assessment of the planning merits in this case. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are insufficient material considerations to indicate that the proposed development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR