Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed10 December 20243342336

34 Douglas Road, HORNCHURCH, RM11 1AR

the erection of rear ground floor and first floor extension and front and rear loft dormer and change of use to six self-contained flats

Authority
London Borough of Havering
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Cryan M

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
  • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to the adequacy of living and amenity space, outlook, and access to and provision of communal space
  • The effect of the proposed development on neighbours' living conditions, with particular regard to whether it would be overbearing or create an unacceptable sense of enclosure, would lead to unacceptable overlooking, or would cause unacceptable noise disturbance as a result of comings and goings
  • Whether the proposed development would include adequate provision of family housing
  • Whether the proposed development would make adequate provision in respect of car parking for future occupiers

What decided it

The significant harm to character and appearance, failure to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, adverse impact on neighbours' living conditions, loss of family housing, and inadequate parking provision, when weighed against the limited housing benefits, meant the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits under the tilted balance.

The limited social and economic benefits of providing six flats (which would not substantially increase occupancy compared to the existing family dwelling) were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the substantial harm to character and appearance, unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, adverse impact on neighbours' living conditions, loss of family housing, and inadequate parking provision creating highway safety risks.

Framework references: 11, 135, 60

Plan policies cited: Policy 26, Policy 7, Policy D6, Policy 5, Policy 9, Policy 3, Policy 24, Policy 23

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.