Appeal 3311415

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is one half of a semi-detached pair of two-storey houses located in a cul-de-sac of identical inter war housing, part of a larger planned residential development.

The appellant proposes, following demolition of the garage and part of an earlier single storey rear extension, the erection of a part single, part two-storey side wrap around extension. The side extension would follow the angled line of the boundary to number 128 and therefore it would get wider towards the rear of the property. The front of the proposed extension would come forward of the line of the current garage and align with the main façade of the house. The extension would have a pitched fascia style flat roof.

[name] saw this house along with most of the neighbouring dwellings has over time been subject to various alterations and extensions, including a number of two-storey extensions. Accordingly, the Council state that it finds no objection to a two-storey side extension in principle. From what I have seen and read I would not form a contrary view.

However, the proposed extension, by reason of its total depth, the unmodulated blank façade of the proposed southern elevation, the false pitched fascia detail and the uncomfortable relationship of the pitched fascia roof and that of the main roof of the house would, in my judgement, significantly detract from the architectural integrity of number 126 and the semi-detached pair.

Further, as designed it would erode the form, design, architectural character and the spacious setting of the original planned estate.

I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that, despite the proposed use of matching materials, the addition as designed would cause significant harm to the character of the application property and would thereby fail to respond to the character of the surrounding area. To allow it would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy D3 of the London Plan ([name] 2021), Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan-Core Strategy with [name] (Adopted 30 July 2014) and the Royal Borough Greenwich Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document SPD ([name] 2018) as they relate, along with other things to the quality of development and the requirement for all development to have a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context.

I appreciate that the appellant wishes to make better use of underutilised space in her garden, however, given the harm that I have identified I give this consideration limited weight in my deliberations.

I have been referred to the appeal decision in respect of [address] (APP/E5330/D/18/3206704). As set out above I agree, for the reasons given, that in principle a two-storey side extension would be acceptable here. However, the two-storey addition before me would, by reason of its design cause significant harm the host property and the surrounding area. Further, this harm would not, in this case, be overcome by the conditions imposed in respect of the development a [address] as suggested by the appellant.

The appellant has referred me to other nearby single/two-storey extensions. Whatever the background to those cases, there existence is not an appropriate justification for permitting the development here which I have considered on its individual planning merits.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.