Appeal 3303758

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the character and appearance of the host property, the terrace and the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and natural light.

The appeal property is a 2-storey mid-terrace house with a pitched roof and a part-single and part 2-storey outrigger to the rear. It forms part of a group of 7 houses of similar age and appearance which were built in a stepped arrangement reflecting the steep fall of the street. The group of houses include flat frontages with framed entrances. They retain the original roof form and have a mix of single and 2-storey outriggers that extend a similar distance to the rear. These features give the group a degree of unity, which is a matter to which I attach significant weight. The group of houses is book-ended at the top of the street by a house with a prominent double-storey bay. This property is somewhat of an anomaly in the street scene.

The proposal would include the erection of a bay window at ground floor level at the front of the house. I note this would improve natural light levels and energy efficiency within the front room. I also note that the house at the end of the terrace includes a prominent double-storey bay. However, this addition would be entirely at odds with the style, age and appearance of the host property and the group of houses of which it forms a key part.

The proposal would also involve the erection of a full-width, flat-roofed dormer occupying the entirety of the rear roof slope and requiring a slight increase in the ridge level. Due to its height, bulk and elevated siting this aspect of the proposal would be an overly prominent and incongruous addition that would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the group of houses of which it forms part.

For these reasons the bay window and dormer additions fail to accord with [name](a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014) which, among other matters, require a high quality of design, limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality. There is also conflict with the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

There is a significant change in level between the appeal property and its neighbour, [address]. As a result of this the rear ground floor windows serving No.12 are enclosed by the fence on the boundary between the adjacent properties and by the 2-storey outrigger at the rear of the appeal property.

The appeal proposal would include a single-storey rear addition next to the shared boundary, that would be taller than the fence it would replace, together with a rear 2-storey addition to the outrigger. The combined effect of these additions would be to further enclose the windows at the rear of No.12 and reduce outlook from, and natural light to, ground floor rooms. The appellant has put forward studies that purport to suggest the impact would be small. However, without clear evidence that these studies are based on accurate survey data, I attach limited weight to this information.

Based on my site observations, I conclude that, due to their height, bulk, siting and rear protrusion, the rear additions would result in reductions in outlook and natural light that would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.12. This aspect of the proposal therefore fails to accord with Local Plan Policy DH(b) and the aforementioned SPD, both of which seek to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

I recognise that the proposal would provide additional space for a growing family and the works would improve the property’s energy efficiency. These benefits do not however outweigh the harm identified above.

This is a householder appeal and therefore has to be considered against the application drawings. The suggested amendment to the dormer is not therefore a matter before me for consideration.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.