Construction of a single storey rear conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 July 2026 by SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010685 98 Lullington Road, Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham RM9 6DS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by MD Abu Hanif against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. • The application Ref is 26/00372/HSE. • The development proposed is construction of a single storey rear conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During the application process the description of development was amended by agreement between the appellant and the Council. I have determined the appeal on the basis of that agreed description, which is used in the banner heading above. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the development on the: • character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, with due regard to the Becontree Estate, a non-designated heritage asset; • living conditions of the occupiers of 96 Lullington Road (No.96) and 100 Lullington Road (No.100), with particular regard to a sense of overbearing and overshadowing. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling situated within a predominantly residential area. It has an existing single-storey rear extension. The immediate area is characterised by modest dwellings of a generally consistent scale and form, set within modest rear gardens. The appeal site also lies within the Becontree Estate, which is identified as a non-designated heritage asset. Its significance derives principally from its planned layout, the uniformity of built form, and the regularity of its urban structure and street pattern. 5. The adjoining properties at No.96 and No.100 appear, at the time of my site visit, to be substantially unaltered at the rear. Although there are examples of rear extensions of varying scales elsewhere within the terrace, the original form of the Appeal Decision 6010685 2 dwellings and appreciable areas of open garden behind them remain readily legible. Together, these features make an important contribution to the established character of the area. 6. The proposal would add a conservatory extension approximately 2.4 metres deep to the existing rear extension. Taken together, the extensions would project approximately 6 metres beyond the original rear elevation and would extend across most of the width of the dwelling. The resulting development would be experienced as a substantial and materially elongated addition to a modest, terraced house. 7. I acknowledge the appellant’s submission that the existing extension forms part of the existing baseline. However, the effects of the development would arise from the completed form as a whole. It is therefore appropriate to take account of the impact of the additional built form in the context of the presence of the existing extension. 8. The total depth of built form represents a clear and substantial exceedance of the guidance set out within the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (the SPD). The resulting extended form and scale of development would appear disproportionate to the modest scale of the host dwelling and would fail to read as a subordinate addition when viewed from neighbouring dwellings and gardens. The issue is not simply that the extended combined depth exceeds the SPD numerical guideline. Rather, the resulting built form would be disproportionate and would erode the legibility of the original form of the dwelling and detract from its simple and uniform character. 9. The appellant describes the conservatory as single-storey, lightweight and predominantly glazed, with a flat roof and limited height. These features would reduce its visual impact to some extent when compared with a wholly masonry extension. Nevertheless, the structure would retain a substantial roof plane, framework, flank elevations and enclosing form. The extent of glazing would not make the development physically or visually insubstantial, nor would it overcome the effect of extending built form approximately 6 metres into the garden. 10. Rear gardens and their relationship with the original built form contribute to the established urban grain. Although there are examples of rear extensions elsewhere within the terrace, the evidence before me does not demonstrate a prevailing pattern of development of the cumulative depth proposed. Consequently, the increased projection would unacceptably erode the remaining balance between built development and garden space and would disrupt the generally consistent relationship between rear building lines and open garden areas. 11. Although the rear garden areas are not prominent in public views, they nonetheless form an important component of the character and quality of the residential environment. The incremental loss of openness through excessive extensions can undermine that character and, in this case, the resulting loss of openness and erosion of the relationship between the dwelling and its garden would not represent good design. 12. Whilst aspects of the Council’s delegated report appear to contain internal inconsistencies, I have determined the appeal on the basis of my own assessment of the evidence before me. I accept that the proposal would have little effect on the public street scene. Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, I have found that the proposal would harm the character of the original dwelling and its established relationship with its rear garden. Appeal Decision 6010685 3 13. The Council referred to Policy D5 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). However, as that policy principally concerns inclusive design and accessibility, it has little relevance to the matters in dispute in this appeal and I attach no material weight to it. 14. Although I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the area arising from the scale and depth of the proposal, I do not consider that this harm extends to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. The proposal would not materially affect the key characteristics of the Estate as experienced within the public realm, which are fundamental to its significance. This is a neutral matter and does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 15. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policies D1, D4 and D6 of the LP and Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan 2020-2037 (2024) (BDLP), which, when read together require new development to be of a high-quality design and relate to its local context. The proposal would also conflict with the guidance of the SPD which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that extensions are subordinate to a host dwelling and avoid overdeveloping a plot. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that developments are visually attractive and add to the overall quality of the area. Living conditions 16. No.100 adjoins the appeal property to the north and No.96 adjoins it to the south. Both properties appear substantially unaltered at the rear. Within the constrained context of a mid-terrace arrangement, the depth and scale of development and its proximity to neighbouring windows and gardens are particularly important. Here, the proposed addition would increase the extent of built form alongside both adjoining boundaries. It would be readily apparent from the rear-facing rooms and the patios and garden areas closest to the neighbouring dwellings. 17. Although the proposed structure would be single storey with a flat roof, its roof, supporting framework and flank elements would extend the built form considerably beyond the neighbouring rear elevations. It would consequently appear unduly dominant and restrict the open aspect presently available. The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable overbearing effect on the occupiers of both neighbouring properties, particularly when experienced from their rear-facing rooms and the garden areas closest to the dwellings. 18. The appellant submits that the extensive glazing and lightweight construction would prevent an overbearing effect. However, the glazing would not remove the physical presence of the structure and would not adequately mitigate the harm identified. 19. Given the position of No.100 relative to the appeal property, the development would also increase shadowing within the part of its rear garden closest to the dwelling. Conversely, having regard to the position of No.96 to the south, I am not satisfied that the proposal would cause unacceptable overshadowing to that property. 20. The appellant argues that the Council did not provide a technical assessment undertaken in accordance with the Building Research Establishment guidance. There is no requirement for a householder application to be supported by a BRE overshadowing assessment, nor is such an assessment a prerequisite for reaching Appeal Decision 6010685 4 a planning judgement. The effects of a domestic extension may also be assessed from its dimensions, orientation, position and relationship with adjoining properties, applying planning judgement. The appellant also refers to inconsistencies within the Council’s delegated report concerning the effects on neighbouring living conditions. Nevertheless, I have reached my own conclusions based on my observations during the site visit, the submitted plans and the other evidence before me. 21. I acknowledge that no objections were received from neighbouring residents. However, the absence of an objection does not demonstrate that a development is acceptable in planning terms. The proposal must be assessed objectively against the development plan and other material considerations. I therefore attach limited weight to this matter. 22. I conclude that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 96 and No.100 through its overbearing effect. Additional harm would arise from increased overshadowing of part of the rear garden of No.100 closest to the dwelling. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy D4 of the LP and Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the BDLP. These require, amongst other things, good design and that development has a positive relationship with existing and nearby properties. For the same reasons, the proposal also conflicts with the guidance contained within the SPD and Section 12 of the Framework. Other Matters 23. Although the SPD is expressed as guidance, this does not diminish the relevance of its underlying design principles, which are supported by policies within the BDLP. The Framework also makes clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Accordingly, I have afforded the SPD appropriate weight. I have seen no convincing evidence of site-specific circumstances or other considerations that would justify a departure from its relevant guidance or the development plan policies. 24. The appellant refers to appeal decisions and approvals at Nos.65, 94 and No.96 Lullington Road. However, insufficient information has been provided to establish whether those developments are directly comparable to the proposal before me in terms of their scale, design, cumulative depth, context or planning circumstances. In any event, each proposal must be determined on its own merits. I therefore attach little weight to those examples. 25. The additional living space and improved accommodation would provide a private benefit to the appellant. However, there is little substantive evidence concerning the claimed environmental performance of the conservatory. In any event, these considerations would not outweigh the identified harm to character, appearance and neighbouring living conditions. Appeal Decision 6010685 5 Conclusion 26. For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are insufficient material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the proposed development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR