New extension to front at ground floor level. Creation of new cloakroom. Single storey extension to front of property. Materials to match existing. Flat roof with canopy arrangement to blend in with canopy as existing. Extension size 1.5mx2.2m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012774 1 Beamway, Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham RM10 8XR • 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 Julian Hall against the decision of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council. • The application Ref is 26/00353/HSE. • The development proposed is a new extension to front at ground floor level. Creation of new cloakroom. Single storey extension to front of property. Materials to match existing. Flat roof with canopy arrangement to blend in with canopy as existing. Extension size 1.5mx2.2m. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new extension to front at ground floor level. Creation of new cloakroom. Single storey extension to front of property. Materials to match existing. Flat roof with canopy arrangement to blend in with canopy as existing. Extension size 1.5mx2.2m at 1 Beamway, Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham RM10 8XR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00353/HSE, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 000 1BW, 1BW 002, 1BW 003A, 1BW 004A, 1BW 005, 1BW 006, 1BW 007A, 1BW 009A and 100 1BW, Preliminary 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 Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and that of the local area. Appeal Decision 6012774 2 Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached house. It is located in a street fronted by a variety of predominantly residential properties varying in type, scale and age. The majority of the older semi-detached and terraced properties have undergone some form of alteration and extension, although the majority of extensions are to the rear of these properties. However, as well as having a rear extension, the appeal dwelling has been the subject of substantial side extensions. 5. The existing side extensions are set back from the original front elevation and sit predominantly behind a brick built electricity substation that sits on its own plot that the appeal plot wraps around. The rear of this substation aligns with the original front elevation of the appeal dwelling, and, due to its scale, position and industrial appearance, appears as a prominent and detrimental element within the existing street scene. Its appearance is softened somewhat by the two storey side extensions to the appeal dwelling. These infill much of the original gap that would have been between the appeal dwelling and its detached neighbour, and within which the sub-station would have originally appeared more prominently and as a significantly more discordant element within the residential streetscene. 6. The appeal proposal is for a relatively small single storey extension that would sit in front of the existing frontmost two storey side extension, with its front wall aligning with the original front elevation. The proposed extension would have a flat roof, but this would sit behind an extension to the existing front entrance canopy. This proposal follows a refusal of an earlier application that included a rear extension that is now omitted and includes design changes, including the proposed extended porch canopy. 7. Although the appeal dwelling has been the subject of existing substantial rear and side extensions that demonstrably alter the visual balance between the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair, as set out above, these extensions are set well back from the street frontage and result in other benefits to the local streetscene, as detailed above. The appeal proposal is not of a scale that would read as a significant increase in scale of the appeal dwelling, but, due to its proposed positioning to the side of the existing main entrance, being set in line with the original front elevation and the extension of the existing canopy, it would appear as a complimentary and subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling. 8. As such, the proposal would not result in any detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and would not add significantly to the existing bulk and visual imbalance between the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair. Consequently, due to its small scale and matching of design and materials to existing, would not result in the appeal dwelling detracting from the local street scene. Therefore, I find that the proposal accords with the design advice for front extensions and porches set out in Section 5.1 and 5.2 of the Barking and Dagenham Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Documents (2012) (the SPD). 9. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. As such, it would accord with Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (2024), Policy D1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DP3 of the Framework. Collectively these seek development that is of Appeal Decision 6012774 3 high quality design, is sympathetic and subordinate to the design of the original dwelling and relate to their local area. 10. 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. Conditions 11. I have only attached the standard timing of implementation and compliance with approved plans conditions. Conclusion 12. The appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR