Appeal 3330054

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.

There are some two storey side extensions to properties within this street scene. However, in general the dwellings are unaltered and there is a consistency to the character and appearance of the street scene along the appeal side of [address]. The hipped roof forms remain discernible and these form a key characteristic of the street scene.

The side extension would be higher than the existing eaves at the side of the property. As such, the proposal would not appear as a subservient addition to the original dwelling. It would be a bulky and unsympathetic addition to the property. Furthermore, the roof form, incorporating a steep mono-pitch with uncharacteristic dormer to the front, would appear out of keeping with the other roof forms within the street scene.

Taken collectively, the overall size and design of the side extension, along with its height in excess of the existing eaves of the host dwelling, would result in an addition that would detract from the appearance of the host property and the street scene. It would also create a visually unbalancing appearance to the pair of semi-detached properties. Consequently, I find that the proposal would be visually harmful. This visual harm would be clear in public views, particularly on the entry approach along [address]. Having a set back from the existing frontage and being constructed with matching materials and fenestration, alongside being less than half the width of the existing dwelling, would not overcome the visual harm that I have identified.

No [address] has received planning permission for a two storey extension that has been completed. However, that development relates to a different street scene at the end of the cul-de-sac. It is advised that No [address] has received planning permission for a side extension in 2018. The details provided show that proposed extension to be of a different pitched roof design to that proposed here. I note that properties Nos 4 & [address] host large flat roofs attached to the main houses, albeit those properties are on the opposite side of [address] where there is a different character to the street scene. I am also directed to a two storey residential development close by that is currently under construction. However, that development does not form part of the [address] street scene. It is also pointed out that two properties have large loft conversions visible from the street.

Whilst it is clear there are other examples of side extensions and other developments in the area, some of which appear to be historic, none are directly comparable to the design of the side extension that is proposed here. Therefore, this proposal can and should be considered on its own merits.

For these reasons given above, 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] with [name], the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) and the provisions of the Framework. 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.

Some concern has been raised to the Council’s handling of a previous planning application and pre-application advice. However, these are matters that, if necessary, should be raised with the Council away from this appeal. In any event, these concerns would not lead me to alter may findings above.

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