Appeal 3318594

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a handsome 2-storey semi-detached house with accommodation within the roofspace. It has a prominent gable and double-storey bay at the front. This is mirrored by the attached house, [address], which gives the pair a balanced symmetrical appearance, albeit this has been slightly diminished by the garage doors in the front elevation of the appeal property and the front dormer at No.81. The neighbouring pair of houses have a similar symmetrical arrangement. Whilst [address] has been rendered and painted, all four houses have essentially the same form and arrangement of windows, bays and gables and all 4 include characterful tiled canopies above the front doors. These common features give this portion of [address] a relatively unified and pleasant appearance that contributes positively to the overall character of the street scene.

The proposal would include a single-storey front addition that would feature a pair of windows, an entrance door and a pitched roof. This would abut the side of the bay resulting in a wholly incongruous relationship between new and original elements. In addition, this structure would disrupt the symmetry of the attached pair of houses and the unity of the group. I therefore conclude that, due to its siting, size and design, the proposed front extension would have an unacceptable effect on the host building and its surroundings.

The appeal property has been extended to the rear. A 2-storey infill extension has been added to the rear of the garage and a single-storey addition extends a significant distance beyond the rearmost original wall of the house. The appeal proposal includes a further single-storey extension that would link these 2 elements. This flat-roofed addition would match the height, design and materials of the earlier single-storey element and together these additions would extend across almost the full-width of the house and a significant distance beyond its original rear elevations.

The proposed third rear addition would result in an increase in bulk and massing that would dominate, and not remain adequately subservient to, the host property. Consequently, it would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.

For the reasons set out the proposal fails to comply 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).

The appellant has referred to a nearby terrace made up of houses that have ground floor forward projections similar to that proposed at the appeal property. These elements appear to be an original feature of the design of the terrace and contribute to the unity and appearance of the group. The appeal property forms part of a group of houses of entirely different age, design and appearance. I therefore attribute limited weight to the nearby terrace.

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