Extension to front of existing garage, conversion of garage and link to garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 July 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010965 26 Reed Pond Walk, Romford, Havering RM2 5PB • 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 Robert Tibbott against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is P0261.26. • The development proposed is extension to front of existing garage, conversion of garage and link to garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to front of existing garage, conversion of garage and link to garage at 26 Reed Pond Walk, Romford, Havering RM2 5PB, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0261.26, 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 drawing no’s 2024-919-010 Rev A (Location Plan) and 2024-919-020 Rev C (Proposed Plans, Elevations & Site Plan). 3) No development above ground level shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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 Matters 3. On the 17 August 2026, the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having reviewed this, I find that the changes do not affect the substance of the main issue of this appeal. Therefore, I have proceeded with the appeal without seeking comments on the new Framework from the main parties and am satisfied that no one would be prejudiced by this action. 4. As the proposal is in a conservation area, I have had special regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). Appeal Decision 6010965 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the Gidea Park Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling which is located in the Gidea Park Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers a large part of the residential suburb known as Gidea Park, featuring roads initially laid out in 1910 on the Gidea Hall and Balgores Estates, to the north and south of Main Road. The CA notably includes a group of 1910/11 and 1933/34 exhibition houses which are designed in an arts and crafts style. 7. The significance of the CA is mostly derived from the variety of the individually designed exhibition houses, where apart from some pairs, no two houses are the same. The Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) identifies the notable characteristics of the exhibition houses, which includes a strong and sometimes complex roof profile, horizontally proportioned windows, timber casement windows, the use of brickwork to emphasise features in otherwise rendered elevations, the use of plain clay tiles with brickwork to create patterns, as well as tiled porches. Moreover, the houses are combined with mature landscaping in the streets, gardens and open spaces which contribute to a high-quality suburban residential area. 8. The appeal property is located on Reed Park Walk, which is highlighted as one of the most distinguished roads in the CA in the Gidea Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (CAMP). Furthermore, although the appeal property is not a listed building, the CAMP identifies that it is one of the 1910/1911 exhibition houses and that it makes a positive contribution to the CA. 9. Given the dwelling’s individual design including its varying roof form and white render, as well as the landscaped spaces around the building, the appeal property contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. However, I observed on my site visit that when viewed from the street, the existing gap between the garage and the main part of the dwelling is not prominent and it does not strongly contribute to the open character of the CA. 10. I acknowledge that the appeal property is one of the important exhibition houses in the CA and thus contributes to the architectural and historic interest of the area. However, the design of the proposed extension to the front of the garage would be complementary to the host dwelling in terms of its continuation of the pitched roof form of the existing garage, as well as the matching clay tiles and white render. Although the extension would interfere with the low eaves’ height of the main part of the dwelling in views towards the south elevation from the neighbouring property, this would not be prominent in the street scene. As such, the design of the extension would not harmfully undermine the individual design of the host dwelling. 11. Furthermore, due to its limited depth, the extension would only take up a small amount of the space around the dwelling and would not erode the landscaped gardens of the property. When viewed in the street scene, the extension would still appear significantly setback from the front elevation and its height would be limited to single storey only, so much so that it would appear as a subservient addition. Appeal Decision 6010965 3 Whilst I also recognise that the planform and circulation of the property would change, this would be minor and would not be immediately obvious from the public realm. With these factors in mind, I find that the proposal would not be harmful to the architectural significance of the property or the important qualities of the CA as outlined above. 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA. Accordingly, it would comply with policies 26 and 28 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (2021) and policy HC1 of The London Plan (2021). Amongst other matters, these require that developments are of a high-quality design which respects and complements the character of the site and the local area and should conserve the significance of heritage assets. 13. For the same reasons, the development would adhere to the guidance in the SPD and the CAMP, which seek extensions which are subordinate to the main building, complementary in terms of design and do not undermine the important qualities of the CA. The proposal would also comply with the objectives of the policies in section 20 of the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Conditions 14. The standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. A condition requiring the submission of all of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development is necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the host building and the CA. 15. A condition requiring the separate details of new windows, doors and sills to be used in the development is not necessary as the details of these elements of the scheme would be required as part of the materials condition. To avoid repetition, I have omitted this condition. 16. A condition restricting permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in the flank walls of the development is not necessary given that any such windows would not overlook private amenity spaces of neighbouring properties. 17. A condition requiring that the converted garage shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse is not necessary as the plans clearly demonstrate that the garage would form part of the ground floor of the dwelling. There is no indication that it would be used for any other use and if a change of use did occur, that would be a matter for the Council to investigate. 18. A condition requiring the written consent of the local planning authority for any works to trees in the vicinity of the site is not required as this would be covered by separate legislation given the location of trees in the CA. A condition requiring the protection of trees during construction is also not necessary as there is no indication from the evidence before me that the development would result in harm to trees. Moreover, from my observations on my site visit, although there are trees in the locality, there were none in the immediate vicinity of where the extension would be located, with the nearest natural feature being a hedgerow. Appeal Decision 6010965 4 Conclusion and Recommendation 19. The proposed development would comply with section 72(1) of the Act and the development plan as a whole and there are no other identified considerations which would alter this finding. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions given above. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to the given conditions. C McDonagh INSPECTOR