Appeal 3310856

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 66) with particular regard to outlook and light; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached house located within a residential area where hipped-roof semi-detached properties are prevalent. It faces [address] and backs onto houses on [address]. The appeal property and the adjoining house retain their original hipped roofs, the sides of which are lower than the main ridgeline. Some dwellings in the road have hip to gable roof extensions or two storey side extensions which have caused some erosion to the character of the area.

For attached houses, the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) indicates that single storey rear extensions should not normally project more than 3.6m from the rear wall of the original house as a deeper extension could block daylight and sunlight for neighbouring properties. [name] note that this is only guidance, it gives an indication of the sizes of extension which the Council considers to be acceptable.

The attached dwelling at No 66 is located north east of the appeal site and has rear patio doors close to the mutual boundary. The outlook from and light to this room is already affected by an existing rear extension on the appeal property. However, whilst I note that the roof of the proposed single storey extension has been designed with a roof profile which pitches away from the mutual boundary, it would result in an extension with a parapet height of 3.1m projecting 4.1m along the mutual boundary, 1.1m longer than the existing one. The projection and height of the extension along this boundary, the orientation of No 66 relative to the appeal site and the close proximity of the patio doors at No 66 to the proposal would result in a harmful loss of sunlight and daylight and dominate the outlook from the southernmost ground floor room at No 66.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and light. This would be contrary to Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 2014 which requires extensions to not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight or sunlight or resulting in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires decisions to ensure safe and healthy living conditions. In addition, it would not comply with the SPD where it requires extensions to not overshadow neighbouring habitable rooms, result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure or reduce the amount of daylight they receive.

The proposal would result in the lower part of the roof being raised to align with the highest part of the roof to accommodate a rear dormer. Whilst the extension would result in some loss of symmetry and balance with the adjoining dwelling at No 66, it would maintain the hipped roof form and affect the symmetry of the semi-detached dwellings to a far lesser extent than existing hip to gable roof extensions in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed roof extension would not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the site, the pair of semi-detached dwellings or the wider locality.

The large, rear dormer would occupy much of the extended roof and have a profile to match the proposed ground floor rear extension. There is an existing rear box dormer occupying most of an extended roof at [address] which has already affected the appearance of the rear roofs in this part of the street. The proposed dormer would be set in from the eaves and ridgelines of the appeal property and from the adjoining property and it would only be publicly visible at a distance from the end of the cul de sac at [address] to the rear. As such, it would not be a dominant and overbearing addition to the property.

Overall, I conclude that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 2014. These require developments to take account of spatial character and extensions to be of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality. It would also be in accordance with the Framework where development should by sympathetic to local character. Additionally, it would comply with the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) where it states that extensions should respect the street scene and character of the area.

The appellant has referred to two expired planning permissions and an extant certificate of lawful development for roof and first floor rear infill extensions to the appeal property. [name] have not found harm in respect of the proposed changes to the roof, including the dormer, and the first-floor rear infill extension, it has not been necessary to consider the fallback position.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.