Addition of 8m single storey rear extension from original wall of dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 August 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012457 146 Main Road, Romford, Havering RM2 5HS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Ms Amyrah Aslam against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref is Y0104.26. • The development proposed is the addition of 8m single storey rear extension from original wall of dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. 4. Where an application is made for prior approval for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply – or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed development would comply with the limitations and conditions in Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. 6. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. Following the Council’s notification, objections were received from the occupiers of 144 Main Road and 148 Main Road. No other representations were received, and the Council did not raise Appeal Decision 6012457 2 concerns regarding the effect of amenity on the occupiers of the other adjoining premises. From what I saw on site, and the distance of the proposed extension from the other adjoining premises, I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion. 7. The Council has referred to the design guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011). There is no provision within Class A for consideration of policy or supplementary planning guidance, therefore while I have had regard to this document, it has not been determinative in this appeal. Main Issue 8. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of 144 and 148 Main Road, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Amenity 9. The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling with an existing rear extension that spans approximately half the width of the rear elevation. This would be replaced by the proposed development. The adjoining properties of No 144 and No 146 Main Road are located either side of the appeal property with rear habitable windows that face onto rear gardens. There is a staggered relationship between the three properties, with the original rear elevation of the appeal property set forward of No 144 and set back from No 148. Boundary treatment of fences and vegetation are present along the shared boundaries providing a degree of screening, although the existing rear extension remains visible above. At No 144, the existing rear extension is set back from the side elevation and, as a result, the occupiers of No 144 currently experience a degree of openness from the rear garden and habitable windows despite their property’s set back. 10. The proposal would extend to a greater depth and width than the existing rear extension. Despite remaining single storey with a pitched roof, the proposal would nevertheless introduce a substantial increase in built form that would be readily visible from the rear windows and garden of No 144 over the existing boundary treatment. Owing to the staggered relationship between the properties, and the proposal situated substantially closer to the boundary, a much greater extent of built form would be experienced from the rear windows and garden of No 144. Consequently, the proposal would appear as a dominant and overbearing feature, eroding the openness along this boundary and creating a greater sense of enclosure, resulting in harm to the outlook from No 144. 11. The proposal would similarly result in a substantial increase in the extent of built form visible from No 148. Although more mature vegetation is present along this boundary, it would not fully screen the depth of the extension which, despite the staggered relationship, would project a considerable depth beyond the rear elevation of No 148. As a result, the proposal would noticeably increase the extent of development perceived from the rear windows and garden of No 148, appearing as a prominent and overbearing feature, contributing to a greater sense of enclosure and harming the outlook from No 148. Appeal Decision 6012457 3 12. For the reasons above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers of No 144 and No 148, with particular regard to outlook. Therefore, I recommend that prior approval should not be granted. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR