We are delighted to have won a planning appeal against the decision of the London Borough of Havering to refusal to grant planning permission for extensions to a house in Romford.
The proposal was for a part single-storey front extension, part single and part two-storey side extension, alongside internal alterations.
The Planning Inspectorate granted approval subject to conditions, following a detailed assessment of the potential impacts on neighbours and the character of the area.
A key issue raised during the appeal was the potential effect on the living conditions of a neighbouring property.
The inspector noted that the proposed first-floor rear window could overlook the neighbour’s garden. However, this concern will be addressed through a condition requiring the window to be fitted with obscured glazing, ensuring privacy for the neighbouring residents.
Furthermore, the extension’s design, including setbacks and spacing from the boundary, ensures it will not appear overbearing or adversely impact the outlook from the neighbouring property’s windows.
Another consideration was whether the extension would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
While there are no similar two-storey side extensions in the immediate vicinity, the inspector concluded that the proposal’s modest scale, subservient design, and stepped-back elements would complement the character of the area.
The inspector emphasiSed that the extension would not result in a cramped appearance, maintaining the spacious feel typical of the neighbourhood.
Lessons for Those Facing Planning Permission Refusals
The appeal decision for 52 Kingsbridge Road offers several valuable insights for homeowners and developers who face planning permission refusals. By understanding the reasoning behind the Inspectorate’s ruling, you can better prepare your own appeal or revised application. Here are some key takeaways:
1. Design Sensitivity and Mitigation Are Crucial
- Issue: The main objection to the proposal was its potential to harm the privacy and outlook of a neighboring property.
- Lesson: If your proposed development could affect neighbors, proactively incorporate mitigations like obscure glazing for windows or thoughtful building placement. In this case, the condition to obscure the rear window was a decisive factor in addressing privacy concerns, allowing the appeal to succeed.
- Tip: Anticipate objections and adapt your design to reduce overbearing effects, maintain adequate separation distances, and ensure your plans comply with local policies.
2. Respecting Local Character Can Help Your Case
- Issue: The Council argued the proposed two-storey extension would harm the character and appearance of the area.
- Lesson: Proposals should align with the design and scale of surrounding properties. In this appeal, the Inspectorate noted that the stepped-back, subservient design and modest scale ensured the extension fit the character of the neighborhood.
- Tip: Consider how your project complements the streetscape. Use features like lowered ridge heights, setbacks, or matching materials to demonstrate sensitivity to local character.
3. Policy Compliance Is Key, but Minor Deviations May Be Acceptable
- Issue: The Council noted the proposal didn’t strictly adhere to Havering’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
- Lesson: While SPDs provide guidance, minor deviations won’t automatically lead to refusal if they don’t result in significant harm. The Inspectorate found that the small variations in this case didn’t materially affect the project’s acceptability.
- Tip: If your proposal deviates slightly from guidance, provide evidence that the impact is negligible and highlight how it still aligns with broader planning objectives.
4. Conditions Can Address Concerns
- Issue: Specific elements of the proposal (e.g., the rear window) raised concerns.
- Lesson: The Inspectorate used conditions, such as requiring obscure glazing, to resolve objections while still allowing the development to proceed.
- Tip: Be open to conditions during the planning process or appeal. They can demonstrate a willingness to compromise and ensure your project moves forward.
5. Appeals Are Worth Considering if Refusal Is Unreasonable
- Issue: The Council refused the application despite the lack of significant harm.
- Lesson: If you believe a refusal is unjustified or based on overly strict interpretations of planning policies, appealing can be a viable option. In this case, the appellant succeeded by arguing that the development met planning objectives and would not harm neighbors or the area.
- Tip: In your appeal, focus on demonstrating compliance with local policies and provide evidence to counter any claims of harm.
Final Thoughts
This decision highlights that planning refusals are not always final. With thoughtful design, mitigation strategies, and a clear focus on policy compliance, it’s possible to overturn refusals or gain approval with conditions. Homeowners should remain proactive, work collaboratively with planning authorities, and seek professional advice if needed to navigate the process effectively.
