Appeal 3264495

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey and two storey side extension at [site address] , Kidbrooke [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/2134/HD, dated 20 July 2020, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, 20/86/1A, 20/86/3A, 20/86/4A and 20/86/5A.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main parties have been given opportunity to comment on the new London Plan which was published in March 2021. Policy D3 has superseded Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the 2016 iteration. I have determined the appeal with regard to the new London Plan, taking into account any comments made thereon.

On 20 July 2021, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published. However, it does not materially alter the national policy approach in respect of the issues raised in this appeal.

The effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two storey, brick built end terraced dwelling. It is in the corner of a horseshoe cluster of similar buildings situated to the west of [address], facing an area of public open space. The surrounding area is characterised by two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings which are generally set back from the road with low level boundary treatments and planting. Some have been extended in a number of ways. Notwithstanding this, the area has a pleasant spacious and verdant appearance which contributes positively to the character of the area.

Although the overall width of the extension would exceed half the width of the existing house, and would not accord with the Council’s Residential Extensions SPD1 in this respect, taking into account the stepped design of the extension and drop in ridge height, the proposal would appear as a subservient addition to the original building. Its discreet position at the end of the property on the corner plot, would result in an extension which would not be a prominent or discordant feature in the street scene. Furthermore, there are examples of other two storey side extensions within the surrounding area of similar scale and massing to the proposal, including those situated at [address], which was allowed at appeal2, and at 72 Ridgebrook Road3.

Lack of conformity with the provisions of SPDs is not the same as conflict with policies of a development plan. Indeed, the SPD in this case is presented as guidance. With this in mind, and for the above reasons, the appeal scheme would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area and, as such, it would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 2014 which, amongst others things, seek to ensure that development is of a high quality design that responds to local distinctiveness and character.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to include a condition that the external materials of the extension match the existing building.

For the above reasons and subject to the conditions set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.