# 52 Eaton Drive, Romford (pair of houses in a rear garden)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Victor Callister
- **Authority:** Havering (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010339
- **Application reference:** P1538.25
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of a garage and erection of a pair of semi-detached houses fronting Carter Drive in the rear garden of an end-of-terrace house
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4
- **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) Policies 7, 10, 26, 34
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, garden-land, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Two semi-detached houses in the long rear garden of an end-of-terrace house in Romford. Dismissed. There was moderate character harm and substantial harm to the neighbour at No 50 (overbearing and overlooking), against substantial weight to housing. The S4 conclusion is worded the wrong way round.

## Issues and findings
- **Character.** The houses "would stand somewhat isolated from other houses, within an otherwise open rear garden context" (DL ¶8) and would appear "overbearing and cramped on their plots" (DL ¶9).
- **Living conditions.** "The proposal would produce a degree of overlooking that would be intrusive and result in a significant loss of privacy of the occupiers of this neighbouring property" (DL ¶13).
- **Findings.** "the proposal would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the local area and substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers" (DL ¶14).
- **Housing.** "Collectively small housing developments in such circumstances make a significant contribution to the delivery of new housing, to which I have given substantial weight" (DL ¶17).
- **S4 (drafting slip).** "I find that the benefits of 2 additional new houses as proposed does not substantially outweigh the collective adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶18). S4 asks the opposite question: whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. The dismissal is plainly consistent with the correct test, given substantial harm to living conditions.

## Transferable points
- Long rear gardens can be a defining spatial characteristic, and two-storey backland houses that interrupt them are incongruous (DL ¶5-9).
- Caution: DL ¶18 inverts the S4 test. Do not cite it for the S4 formula.

## Policy findings
- **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** two-storey houses cramped and incongruous against the long-garden spatial character; conflict with DP3 and L2; no DP3(3) or clear-justification step (DL 5-9, 14)
- **P3: harm (substantial weight).** mapped: letter cites DP3 liveability; overbearing presence and significant overlooking of No 50 and its garden (DL 10-14)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** small sites collectively significant; two homes a small contribution; Havering shortfall on the HDT (DL 16-17)
- **S4: fail.** letter says the benefits "does not substantially outweigh" the adverse effects, inverting the S4 formula (DL 18)

## Key facts
- Long, narrow rear gardens of the terraces give the area its spaciousness; Carter Drive has no houses fronting it (DL 5-6)
- The plot would be split into three roughly equal parts (DL 7)
- Council's Policy 34 (pollution) reason not relied on (DL 15)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010339
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c61062b-aba0-4b0d-aa0e-bce92b78db0a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010339.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.