Appeal 3329380

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised versions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) have been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the latest version of the Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

The area is characterised by semi-detached dwellings with brick ground floors, rendered first floors and rear elevations, including double storey bays to the front with tiled aprons and hipped roof. There have been alterations to the dwellings in the surrounding area, although none appear to be of the same scale as the proposed side extension. The side and rear of the site is visible from a public walkway to the eastern side of the site and the frontage is visible within the [address] street scene.

The Council’s Residential Extensions, Basement and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out guidance for extensions to dwellings, including that of side extensions. It comments that “Two storey side extensions are likely to have an impact on the character and setting of the street.” The proposal would meet much of the guidance set out in the SPD. However, the SPD requires side extensions to be less than half the width of the main house. The proposed width of the side extension would be substantially wider than the guidelines advocate.

The proposed side extension, given its size, would be a dominant addition to the host dwelling and have a negative impact on its character and appearance. Furthermore, the proposed staircase would extend above the two storey side extension. I do not consider the staircase to be a conventional or appropriate design feature to this semi-detached property. These additions would be visually harmful and this harm would be visually prominent within the street scene. I do not consider the shape and the available space within the appeal site or the orientation and set back of the of extension from the front building line would overcome the visual harm.

I have been provided photographic examples of other two storey side extensions in the local area, some of which are in visually prominent locations within street scenes. However, those examples relate to different locations and are of different design to that proposed here. The proposal before me can and should be considered on its own individual merits.

The Council’s SPD resists the conversion of sloped hip end roof into flat gable end roof on the side of the house and discourages full width dormer extensions on any roof face as they do not integrate well with pitched roof houses.

The proposal seeks a hip-to-gable loft conversion with rear dormer. I have been referred to a Certificate of Lawful Development application (CLD) (Ref: 22/4266/CP) approved 20 March 2023 for a hip to gable roof extension including rear dormer at the appeal property. The Council’s delegated report comments that the proposal would be similar to the approved CLD apart from the materials to be utilised. Therefore, there is consent in place that would allow for the roof to be extended in a similar way to that proposed here. This illustrates an indication to undertake this element of the proposal, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal in regard of the other elements of the proposal.

From the details provided the effect of implementing the CLD would be similar to that of implementing the roof extension and rear dormer as proposed here. This is a material consideration that holds substantial weight. Whilst this part of the proposal may conflict with the SPD guidance I consider there to be a clear intention to extend the roof and this can be done lawfully. This holds significant weight in favour of this part of the proposed development.

The SPD guidance pertaining to external finishes advocates that materials should relate as closely as possible to those used in the original building. It also notes that using different materials for small areas could make an extension look out of place and visually separate it from the main house.

The appellant explains that the proposed green palette of materials has derived from the surrounding woodland as well as from [name] design, noting [name] is close by. However, I did not see any prominent influence from the art deco movement within this residential street.

The green glazed brick, dormer and staircase materials would not match that of the host dwelling. They would be very different in appearance. They would appear visually conspicuous given their contrast to any of the materials in the area. This would be so despite the existing front bay window hosting painted green tiling and there being some variations to materials in the locality. Consequently, the materials would be visually harmful. Given the materials form a fundamental part of the proposed design of the scheme I do not consider that it would be appropriate to rely on a planning condition to control materials as there is no clear indication that this could ameliorate the objections sufficiently.

I give significant weight to the likelihood that the CLD extensions and alteration to the roof would take place and, for this reason, I do not object to this element of the proposal. Nonetheless, the other elements of the proposed development would not respect the character and appearance of the host building and that of the street scene and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] and the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basement and Conversions Guidance SPD. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high quality design, to positively contribute to the improvement of both the built and natural environment, respond to local distinctiveness and to be of a scale and character that respects the host building, the street scene and surrounding area.

The Framework advises that significant weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings. However, I have found that this would not be the case here.

The application site is not within a Conservation Area, it is not a locally or statutory listed building and is not affected by any relevant Article 4 Direction nor is it in a flood risk zone. The proposed development would make best use of the land by optimising the capacity of the site by providing a larger family dwelling within the existing curtilage. The proposed development would increase the density of the site through a larger dwelling in a sustainable location. The proposed extensions would retain the clearly defined private space and have no impact on access, servicing, safety or security. The Council have not raised any objections in relation to outlook, privacy, living conditions, trees, or private outdoor amenity space. No third party objections were received to the proposed development. Whilst these are merits of the scheme, they do not overcome my above concerns or justify the proposed development.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.