Erection of a single storey side infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 July 2026 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009288 28 Crescent Road, Plaistow, London E13 0LT • 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 Sonia Ullah against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application reference is 26/00387/HH. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey side infill extension at 28 Crescent Road, Plaistow, London E13 0LT in accordance with the terms of the application reference 26/00387/HH subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision. Procedural and preliminary matters 2. While the appellant has described the proposed development as in the above heading, the Council has referred to it as the erection of a single storey rear and side extension with rooflights. From my inspection of the plans, I consider that the Council’s description more fully reflects the development sought. I have assessed the appeal scheme on that basis. 3. The Council's Delegated Report records the recommendation of the Case Officer on the final page as “Approve”. However, the main body of the Delegated Report and its conclusion support the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. Whatever the reason for this inconsistency, it is not determinative in this appeal either way. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have assessed the proposed development on its own merits. Main issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey dwelling within a predominantly residential area, wherein buildings vary in size, type and design. At the rear of the existing dwelling are 2 single-storey extensions, which differ in depth and height and a detached brick outbuilding. The Council notes that both rear extensions and the outbuilding are likely to be immune from enforcement and therefore form part of the planning baseline against which the proposal should be assessed. Appeal Decision 6009288 2 6. The existing rear extension to the east is noticeably lower and shorter than that to the west. The proposal would infill the gap between them to create a continuous single-storey rear addition, with a unified flat roof, across the full width of the dwelling. As a result, the finished dwelling would appear more substantial than it does at present. 7. Even so, neither the depth nor the height of the completed rear addition would exceed that already established by the existing extensions. The increase would be confined principally to infilling the gap between them and raising the roof of the lower eastern extension to the height already established by the western extension. Although the completed rear addition would be larger as a result, it would remain subservient to the 2-storey host dwelling and continue to read as a secondary element rather than visually dominating the host building. 8. The introduction of additional built form at the rear would reduce the sense of space immediately behind the dwelling, and I recognise that the Council attaches significant weight to this effect. However, the existing outbuilding would remain physically separate from the new extension, and a reasonable area of usable private garden would remain. The proposed removal of the existing greenhouse next to the outbuilding would also increase the open space at the rear, thereby offsetting part of the additional built form. Weighing these factors together, I conclude that while the cumulative amount of built development at the property would be considerable, it would not be excessive to the point of causing significant harm to the openness of the rear garden or result in a visually cramped rear curtilage. 9. As the proposal would be confined to the rear of the property, away from the road, it would preserve the character and appearance of the local street scene. It would be visible to some extent from the rear of nearby properties. In those views, the new addition would be seen in the context of rear extensions and outbuildings that the Council acknowledges exist on nearby properties. In that varied context, the proposal would not appear incongruous nor obtrusive. 10. I recognise the Council's view that the existence of lawful rear extensions and an outbuilding does not automatically justify further development. I agree with that general proposition. The question in this case, however, is whether the additional development now proposed would, when assessed against the planning baseline, result in unacceptable harm. For the reasons given above, I find that it would not. The proposal would largely consolidate existing built form without materially increasing its established depth or introducing a form of development that would appear excessively bulky, dominant or visually cramped. 11. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the local area. As such, it would not conflict with Policies SP1, SP3 and SP8 of the Newham Local Plan 2018, which together seek to secure high-quality, well-designed development. 12. No specific policies or guidance within the London Plan, the Council's Altering and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document or the National Planning Policy Framework are identified within the reason for refusal. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the proposal would also accord with the general design principles contained within those documents. Appeal Decision 6009288 3 Other matters 13. The flank wall of the proposed extension would extend up to, and partly along, the shared boundary with 30 Crescent Road. Given the single-storey scale of the proposal and the presence of an existing boundary wall at the rear of this attached property, the new addition would not appear unduly bulky or overbearing. Whilst the increased height of the boundary wall would have some effect on outlook, light and the sense of enclosure experienced by the occupiers of No 30, the change would not be so significant as to justify withholding planning permission. Any works affecting the existing party wall are matters that are covered by separate legislation. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. Conclusion 15. Overall, I find that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the local area, nor would it result in an unacceptable cumulative form of development when assessed against the planning baseline. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 3025-01 Rev 01, 3025-02 Rev 01, 3025-03 and 3025-04. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.