Appeal 3310400

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a set of revised drawings with the appeal. The changes to the proposal include a slight reduction in height and the omission of an oriel window. I am satisfied that these changes are minor and it would not be prejudicial to determine the appeal on the basis of these amended drawings.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blackheath Park Conservation Area (BPCA).

The appeal property is an imposing 4-storey semi-detached house. Together with its attached neighbour, [address], the property is locally listed and makes a clear and substantial positive contribution to the appearance of the BPCA. The property is set a significant distance from the road and has a long garden to the rear. The surrounding area includes a mix of grand houses, flats and twentieth century housing estates, which are unified and softened to a degree by the existence of mature trees and established vegetation close to the road.

The proposal would comprise the erection of an L-shaped rear extension at upper ground floor level combined with a smaller lower ground floor extension, that would be largely below ground level. The above ground level development would occupy almost the entirety of the rear elevation of the house and would partly wrap around the side elevation. It would include the formation of terraces that would be raised above existing ground level and the overall development would extend a significant distance into the garden.

Reference has been made to the rear wing at No. 97. The information before me indicates that this element has existed for many years and is only connected to a very small portion of the rear elevation. As such this wing and the appeal proposal are not directly comparable and therefore I attribute limited weight to the existence of the wing to the rear of No. 97. I recognise that the proposal would provide the appellant with enhanced living accommodation and a better connection between the house and garden would be provided. I also note the proposal would involve limited removal of existing building fabric and would not be visible from the street.

However, due to its height, width, depth and form, the proposal would be an overly dominant and incongruous addition that would disrupt the symmetry and integrity of the pair of locally listed houses and have an harmful effect on their setting. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the appearance of the host building and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the BPCA. The harm in this respect would be substantial.

The proposal therefore fails to accord with Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a), DH(h) and DH(j) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan, [name] with [name] (2014) which, amongst other matters, seek development that pays special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. There is also conflict with the aims of Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), and the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

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