Construction of a single storey semi-covered rear structure

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006869 6 East Park Close, Chadwell Heath RM6 6XX • 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 Arslan Farooq against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. • The application Ref is 25/01809/HSE. • The development proposed is construction of a single storey semi-covered rear structure. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Preliminary Matter 3. On my site visit I observed that there was already a rear structure in the position of the proposed development and that this appeared to be substantively complete. However, it appeared to differ from the development depicted on the appellant’s drawings as the side elevations were partly infilled. In any case, I have based my recommendation on the drawings before me. I have also removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the appeal decision banner heading as it is not a description of development. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, having particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling which sits at the end of a short terrace. It has a gabled front porch and to the rear it has a pre-existing two-storey extension with a hipped roof complementing its host and matching facing materials. There is also a flat-roofed single storey extension aligning with the rear elevation of Appeal Decision 6006869 2 the two-storey rear extension, substantively infilling the area between this and the boundary with the attached property, 7 East Park Close. 6. Due to its deep rearwards projection beyond the previous rear extensions, the thick profile of its flat roof and its bulky piers, the rear structure would not be read as a lightweight addition. This would be compounded by the uncharacteristic timber cladding, which would further highlight its incongruity alongside the traditional aesthetic of its host. Consequently, whether or not it would be open sided, the structure would appear as an unduly prominent, tacked on addition that would fail to effectively assimilate with the traditional form and materials of its host and the local vernacular. 7. The proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024) (LP) and Policies D1, D4, D5 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) which require development to relate to local context, demonstrate high quality design which is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place, and to have regard to scale, form materials and detailing. For the same reasons, it would not align with the guidance set out in the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD). Living Conditions 8. The neighbouring properties either side of the appeal dwelling are served by deep rear gardens which provides considerable distance between their outbuildings and rear elevations. This ensures that occupiers of 5 and 7 East Park Close (Nos 5 and 7) experience a spacious outlook and a good level of sunlight and daylight throughout the day. 9. The SPD advises that single storey rear extensions should not exceed a depth of 3.65 metres as measured from the original rear wall of the house. The aim of this is to ensure that there is no material loss of daylight and outlook to neighbouring properties. In combination with the previous extensions, the proposed development would exceed this given depth. However, whilst the proposal would result in increased form, most notably along the closest boundary at no 7, the structure would not be significantly taller than the existing boundary fencing. Consequently, outlook from this neighbouring dwelling would not be materially altered. Its position set away from the boundary with No 5 would also preserve suitable outlook for neighbouring occupiers to that side. 10. Moreover, the structure’s single storey height together with the orientation of the plots and the natural path of the sun means that any shadowing caused by the development is likely limited and restricted to the earliest hours of the day. These findings are regardless of whether the sides of the structure would be enclosed or not. There is also no evidence to suggest there would be any significant effect on levels of daylight experienced within these neighbouring dwellings. Consequently, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, having particular regard to outlook and light. In those particular respects, it would comply with Policies D4 of the London Plan and Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the LP which require developments to consider impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6006869 3 Other Matter 11. The appellant has suggested that a fallback position exists. However, there is nothing before me in terms of any extant planning permission or for example a certificate of lawful development to verify this. Therefore, I have assessed the appeal on the basis that planning permission has been applied for. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR