Two storey side/rear extension, following demolition of existing conservatory

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: 4 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011911 16 Heather Glen, Romford, Havering RM1 4SR • 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 Zayar Htut against the decision of the London Borough of Havering Council. • The application Ref is P0148.26. • The development proposed is a two storey side/rear extension, following demolition of existing conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. As the description of development varies between documents submitted, I have used that from the Council’s decision notice as this is a clear and accurate description that has also been used by the appellant for their statement. 3. 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 Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. Reasons 5. The appeal dwelling is a two storey bay fronted detached house with a hipped roof and a square footprint, located on the inside of the bend to the cul-de-sac at the end of Heather Glen. The street and cul-de-sac are fronted by a mixture of detached, semidetached and terraced houses. They vary in scale but are of similar age and architectural expression. They sit back from the footway behind front gardens and short drives, which results in a consistent building line to the street. As a corner property with a wraparound garden, the appeal dwelling, notwithstanding the later side conservatory, accords with this general building line, on both its front and side street frontages. Appeal Decision 6011911 2 6. The appeal proposal involves the creation of a two storey side extension that would require the removal of the existing conservatory. Its ground floor front elevation would be approximately 5 metres in width, aligning with the original front wall of the appeal dwelling, and would extend very close to the boundary of the appeal property with the footway. At ground level the proposed extension would extend rearward by approximately 11.4 metres at the same width, and well beyond the original rear wall of the appeal dwelling. This would result in an ‘L’ shaped footprint to the appeal dwelling. I note that the application to which this appeal relates was made after the approval of an application1 for an unimplemented similar but significantly smaller side extension. 7. The first floor of the proposal would align with the original flank wall of the appeal dwelling, but would be smaller than the proposed ground floor, being set in on the front, rear and side elevations of the ground floor element. A wraparound lean-to roof would sit above the larger parts of the ground floor to mediate between the two differently sized floors. At roof level the proposed extension would have a hipped roof form. This would also hip with the side slope of the original hipped roof but would have a ridge height set slightly down from the original roof ridge. 8. The proposal would result in what would be, and would evidently appear to be, a much larger house. To achieve this, the proposal would take up much of the side and rear garden of the appeal dwelling, setting the main flank parts of the proposal, at both ground and first floors, significantly further towards the street than the existing building line in Heather Glen. At the corner of the ground floor front and main flank walls of the proposal, it would be only just very slightly set in from the street boundary fence at this point. 9. The scale and bulk of the proposal, its proximity to the street boundary and significant setting forward from the established building line would result in the appeal dwelling appearing as a visually intrusive feature within the street scene, and as a dominating rather than subservient addition to the appeal dwelling. Overall, the bulk and scale of the proposal would result in it appearing cramped onto its site, in contrast to the other houses on the street, within the context of which it would appear incongruous. 10. As such the proposal would fail to accord with the design guidance set out for such extensions in the Havering Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). This seeks extensions that are set back at least 1 metre from the back edge of the footway and that should not project forward of the building line on adjoining streets, and as a corner property, I find that this guidance applies in this instance. 11. The appellant has brought to my attention other approved two storey side extensions to houses in the immediate local area. However, whilst these may relate to two storey side extensions, they do not reflect the corner site context or bulk and scale of the proposal and have a minimal effect on their immediate streetscene, as such they differ significantly in this regard from the appeal development. These would have been considered on their own merits at the time of their approval, as I have done with the appeal development, which is a main tenet of the planning system. I have therefore afforded these only very limited weight in my considerations. 1 Planning Ref: P2332.21 Appeal Decision 6011911 3 12. For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. This would fail to accord with Policy 26 of the of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DP3 of the Framework. Collectively these seek development that contributes to the creation of successful places, respects the qualities, identity and character of their site and local area, including local patterns of development and respects local streetscene, and is of high design quality. 13. The Council’s decision finds that the appeal development is contrary to policy D4 of the London Plan (2021). As policy D4 relates to policy guidance and design management procedures for London planning authorities, I have not come to this same conclusion. Planning Balance and Conclusion 14. The main benefits of the proposal are substantially private ones in providing additional living space for occupants. However, planning decisions are generally made in the public interest. Accordingly, I have given only slight weight to these benefits, and these do not outweigh the substantial harm to character and appearance I have identified above, to which I have given substantial weight in my considerations. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR