Our client had built a first floor rear extension at his semi-detached home in Romford without planning permission. The Council had refused an earlier application for the same development on amenity grounds, and then served an enforcement notice requiring the extension to be demolished within three months.
The council’s reasons for issuing the notice focused on the impact on the immediately adjoining neighbour at number 25. The notice alleged that the extension was, by reason of its “excessive depth, height and position close to the boundaries of the site, an intrusive and unneighbourly development”, contrary to the council’s design policies, its Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, the London Plan and the NPPF.
Notably, the notice did not allege any harm to the design of the extension itself, did not allege any harm to the more distant neighbours, and did not allege any loss of light, sunlight or privacy. The council’s case rested entirely on the proposition that the extension was overbearing in relation to the adjoining neighbour at number 25.
We appealed under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on grounds (a) and (g), with the ground (a) appeal arguing that planning permission should be granted for the development.
Our argument on appeal
Our case rested on a careful reading of the Council’s own Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD, which is the most detailed source of guidance on householder extensions in Havering. The SPD sets out three central recommendations for two storey rear extensions to semi-detached properties: they should be no more than 3 metres deep, set in at least 2 metres from the boundary with the attached neighbour, and finished with a hipped roof.
The extension at 27 Wigton Road complied with all three. The depth was no more than 3 metres, the extension was set in from the boundary with number 25 by more than 2 metres, and it had been built with a hipped roof in matching brickwork.
The SPD also contains a specific provision relevant to orientation. Where a two storey rear extension is proposed to the north of the adjoining property — meaning it will not block the southern sun — the guidance can be relaxed. The extension at 27 Wigton Road sat to the north of number 25, which removed the most common amenity objection to two storey rear extensions to semi-detached houses.
We also drew attention to the property’s unusual setting. The house sits on a bend in the road and has an unusually large side and rear garden. The extension did not appear cramped or dominant in its plot, and the openness of the surrounding garden softened the visual impact considerably.
On privacy, the extension had no side windows facing number 25, and the Council had not alleged any overlooking. On outlook, number 25 retained a full and direct view down its own rear garden — the extension was not visible from the neighbour’s rear-facing windows except at an oblique angle and at distance.
In short, the Council’s allegation that the extension was “intrusive and unneighbourly” was not supported by any specific harm identified in the notice itself, and the development complied with the Council’s own published guidance.
The decision
The inspector, R Satheesan, agreed. He concluded that:
- The extension was of an acceptable design, size and scale, with matching brickwork and a hipped roof that respected the original property.
- The property’s unusually large garden meant the extension did not appear dominant or harm the openness of the site.
- There was no harm to the living conditions of number 25 in terms of light, outlook or privacy, given the extension’s modest depth, distance from the boundary and orientation.
- There was no harm to the more distant neighbours on Chudleigh Road.
The inspector allowed the ground (a) appeal, quashed the enforcement notice, and granted planning permission on the deemed application for the development already carried out. Our client kept the extension.
What this case shows
Where a council has issued an enforcement notice that alleges harm in general terms — “intrusive and unneighbourly” was the language used here — but does not identify any specific way in which the development falls foul of the council’s own published guidance, the notice can be vulnerable on appeal. A careful, policy-led case made the difference between demolition and a kept extension.
If you have received an enforcement notice from Havering or any other London council, get in touch. We will review your notice for free and give you an honest assessment of your prospects on appeal.
