Construction of front porch, a two-storey side extension and a part single-storey, part two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 August 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011745 5 East Park Close, Chadwell Heath, Barking and Dagenham RM6 6XX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant [outline] planning permission. • The appeal is made by Muhammad Arshad against the decision of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. • The application Ref is 26/00354/HSE. • The development proposed is the construction of front porch, a two-storey side extension and a part single-storey, part two storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of front porch, a two-storey side extension and a part single-storey, part two storey rear extension at 5 East Park Close, Chadwell Heath, Barking and Dagenham RM6 6XX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00354/HSE, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25-878-P00, 25-878-P03, 25-878-P04, 25-878-P05, 25-878-P06 and 25-878-P07. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building. Procedural Matters 2. Subsequent to the decision made by the Council on the application to which this appeal relates, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) (the Framework). I consider that there have been no major changes relevant to the main issues in this appeal. It will therefore not prejudice any party by making my decision with regard to the revised Framework. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Appeal Decision 6011745 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is a two storey end of terrace house, with a hipped roof above its side flank elevation, which faces onto a side alley between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring short terrace of houses. It is located in a local area that forms part of a planned estate made up of short terraces of similar two storey houses with front and rear gardens. The front garden of the appeal property is hard paved to provide off street parking. 5. Many of the houses in the local area have undergone a variety of alteration and extensions. The extensions, apart from a variety of front porch additions, are limited to the rear of houses in the terraces or to the side of some end of terrace properties. 6. Due to the appeal dwelling being located on the outside of a curve in the street The rear garden of the appeal dwelling angles away from the appeal dwelling as it extends rearwards and follows the line of the alleyway. Despite this angle the garden remains the same width for its full length, which results in it also angling away from its attached neighbour and 4 East Park Close (No.4). 7. Approval of a prior approval application1 was previously issued for permitted development of a single storey rear extension. To the rear of the property walls have been constructed that follow both the plans submitted for the application that forms the basis of this appeal for a front porch, a two-storey side extension and a part single-storey, part two storey rear extension and of the previous prior approval application for the permitted development. 8. The application to which the appeal related was made on 9 March 2026. Within the material submitted with this application the appellant clearly indicated, on plans dated February 2026, that implementation of the permitted development of a single storey ground floor extension had commenced. The Council has stated that the implementation of the permitted development of the proposal that was the subject of the prior approval application needed to have commenced by 20 March 2026 and have not accepted that the implementation of the scheme had commenced prior to this date. 9. However, nothing is before me to indicate why the Council would come to this conclusion. As such, I see no reason to not accept the material submitted with the application, prior to the end of the time limit for implementing the permitted development, along with the presence of the constructed walls to the rear of the appeal dwelling, as reasonable evidence that it has commenced. The completion of the permitted development of the rear extension therefore forms a legitimate fallback position for the appellant, should this appeal be refused. 10. The application to which this appeal relates follows the refusal of an earlier application2 for a similar proposal for a front porch, a two-storey side extension and a part single-storey, part two storey rear extension. The appellant indicates in their appeal submission that there are small changes in design intended to overcome the reasons given for refusal of this earlier application. 1Planning Ref: 23/00232/PRIEXT 2 Planning Ref: 25/01765/HSE Appeal Decision 6011745 3 11. In the appeal proposal the proposed side extension would align with the original front wall of the appeal dwelling and would extend the existing original hipped side roof form. Along with the proposed porch element, that construction of which appears to have already commenced, the proposal would reflect the original design of the appeal dwelling, and its fenestration. It would also reflect the type of side extension to end of terrace houses evident elsewhere in the local area. 12. At first floor level, the proposed side extension would align with the flank of the proposed two storey element of the proposed rear extensions. The two storey element of the proposed rear extension would be approximately half the width of the extended property. This would have a hipped roof form that would merge and hip with the roof of the side extension and the original rear roof slope. The ridge of its hipped roof would be set well down from that of the main house. The proposal in these regards would generally reflect the design of the rear two storey extension to the neighbouring house at 6 East Park Terrace, without appearing to differ significantly from the hipped roof forms seen on virtually all houses in the local area. 13. Due to the presence of the alley between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring short terrace, the proposed side extension and two storey rear element of the proposed rear extension would not encroach significantly on the gap between short terraces on either side of it. As such the proposal would not significantly disrupt this clear visual break, which is a significant characteristic of the spatial pattern of the local area. 14. Overall, the two storey element of the proposed rear extension would result in the appeal dwelling having a predominantly ‘L shaped form. Rather than appearing as fragmented, the overall resulting effect would be of an evident and complimentary hipped roof form when viewed from the rear, as well as in the tangential and/or partial street views of the proposal. Due to their height and scale, the single storey elements of the rear extension would not appear significantly in any street views and would appear recessively in rear views of the appeal dwelling, playing a limited role in establishing the overall character of the proposed extended appeal dwelling. 15. In combination with the stepping down of the roof over the two storey rear part of the proposed rear extension in the available views, the proposed bulk and recessive massing of the proposal would result in it appearing as complimentary and subordinate to the appeal dwelling. As such, it would not appear as an unduly prominent or dominating addition that would overwhelm the appeal dwelling. Therefore, the scale and design of the proposal would not result in it appearing as disproportionate or overdeveloped on its site, or as a discordant element within the streetscene of the local area. 16. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling or that of the local area. In this instance, lack of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations. Living Conditions 17. Whilst the proposed two storey element of the proposed rear extension would be readily visible from the rear garden of the adjoining house at No.4, it would be positioned well away from the boundary between the two properties. In the available tangential views from the rear rooms of the appeal dwelling, it is arguable that if this element of the proposal would be at all visible. Given the scale of the proposal and Appeal Decision 6011745 4 the distance involved it would not appear in any of these views as unduly dominating or result in any significant change in enclosure or outlook that would be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.4. 18. Although the Council have concluded that the proposal as a whole would result in a loss of daylight that would result in overshadowing of No.4, it was evident from my site visit and from the generally south-easterly orientation of these neighbouring dwellings that any loss of daylight would be minimal and restricted to the latter part of the day/evening. Although this would be greater in the winter months, given the height of the proposed single storey element of the proposed rear extension along the boundary, it would not be so significant that it would be substantially greater than the shadow resulting from the existing tall boundary fence. 19. The main part of the 5 metre wide single storey element of the proposed rear extension would extend rearward from the original rear wall of the appeal dwelling by approximately 6 metres. As such it would extend rearward significantly further than the 3.65 metres set out for such extensions in the in the Barking and Dagenham Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2023). 20. Given the approximate 3 metre height of the proposed single storey element adjacent to the boundary with No.4, and notwithstanding the angling away of the garden of the appeal dwelling from No.4, this would result in an increased sense of enclosure to that part of the garden nearest to the house at No.4 and to its rear room served by the nearest ground floor window. The resulting degree of harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling would be moderate rather than substantial. 21. For the reasons given I find that the proposal would result in a loss of outlook that would cause moderate harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policy DMD1 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DP3 of the Framework. Collectively these seek developments that reflect the principle of liveability, consider the impact on neighbouring amenity and provide appropriate outlook. 22. As I have identified above, the completion of the commenced permitted development of the single storey rear extension would be a legitimate fallback position for the appellant, which would have a very high likelihood of being completed as an alternative to the appeal proposal. However, this would result in the same moderate harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers as the appeal proposal that I have identified. Given the benefit of increasing the size of the appeal dwelling to meet the needs of a larger family and improve the living conditions of occupiers, I find that the proposal would result in greater benefits than the appellants legitimate fallback option, whilst resulting in the same moderate harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, the balance is in favour of the appeal proposal, and it is reasonable to approve the appeal proposal on that basis. Conditions 23. The walls already constructed on site, whilst also reflecting the implementation of the permitted development of a single storey rear extension, along with the implemented porch element of the proposal, can also be considered to constitute the Appeal Decision 6011745 5 implementation of the appeal proposal. As implementation of the proposal has commenced, I have not added the standard condition on the timing of implementation. In the interests of good design, I have applied a condition requiring compliance with approved plans and the use of materials to match existing, which the appellant has stated would be the case in their appeal statement. Conclusion 24. The appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR