Appeal 3279862

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling with a hipped roof and front and distinctive rear gable, with chimneys on each side. The dwelling is located at the southern end of [address]. There are prominent views of the rear and side of the dwelling from the park, which is located to the side and rear of the property. Hipped roofs and front gables are an established characteristic of this residential area close to the appeal site. This roof form minimises the bulk at roof level.

The proposal consists of a first-floor infill extension, enclosing the Juliet balcony to the rear, a hip to gable roof, a full-length rear dormer with minimal step back and step down and two rooflights to the front roof slope. The Royal Borough of Greenwich Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance 2018 (SPD), states that proposals that change the roof form should seek to preserve or enhance the existing appearance in terms of height, scale and visual interest.

The proposed rear dormer would be very large in scale and it would not be set up from the eaves from any significant degree. It would cover almost the entirety of the width of the roof slope as extended. This would result in a very top-heavy appearance and would appear contrary to the design of the other dwellings in this part of the street. In respect of dormer extensions, the proposal would be in conflict with the SPD, which advises that these should be small scale and that box dormers should be avoided as they can be overbearing.

The proposed hip to gable roof extension would appear as bulky and dominating to the host dwelling and would not be sympathetic to the established hipped roof form in the immediate area. This would be exacerbated by the prominent location, where the roof alterations would diminish the reprieve at roof level, when viewed from both the street and the park. The infill extension and dormer would largely subsume the rear projecting gable feature and the existing chimneys would be removed. Collectively this would result in the rear of the dwelling appearing monolithic.

In relation to the windows and balcony proposed within the rear dormer, these would be unsympathetic in design and arrangement to the fenestration on the existing house and surrounding area.

Although the host dwelling is the last one located on this side of the road, before the park, the proposal would still significantly effect the street scene as this location is encompassed within it and therefore the proposed development would cause harm. Even though the proposed materials would match the existing dwelling, this would not minimise the harm identified above. This is therefore neutral in this case.

For the reasons detailed above, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal would not comply with Policies D3 of The London Plan (2021) and DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) which together seek that development should be a high-quality design that responds to the existing character and is limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality, including in respect of roof extensions.

Based on the above, and having regard to all matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.