Appeal 3343693

The appeal is dismissed.

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 area.

The development along this part of [address] comprises of semi-detached dwellings with a characteristic catslide style roof to the side. However, many of the properties within this row host large roof extensions within the side catslide roof, some of which appear to be of a similar size and form to that proposed here.

The proposed part-two part-single storey rear extension would integrate with the proposed first-floor side extension to create additions that would wrap around the existing dwelling. The rear extension would be of substantial size and projection at the rear of the dwelling. The two storey part would be more than half the width of the main house and substantially taller than its eaves height. As such, the rear extension would appear as an overly large and overwhelming addition to the host building and would be visually harmful for this reason. Although positioned at the rear of the property and not open to views from the public realm, the harm arising for the proposal would be clearly visible in the outlook from existing neighbouring residential occupiers.

I have been directed to a May 2022 planning permission that granted the construction of a part one, part two storey side and rear wrap around extension and associated external alterations at [address]. That property is at one end of this row of semi-detached properties. I have been provided the Council’s decision notice and delegated report. In that case a lesser rear projection to that property was proposed to that which is proposed here. Whist that proposed development has similarity to the proposal before me, the size, scale and design of the proposed rear extension that is before me can and should be considered on its own merits.

It was clear at my visit that the original character, unity and rhythm of dwellings along this section of [address] has been altered to a considerable degree. Whilst the first floor side extension would unbalance the appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings, there are a considerable number of other examples of this form of development within this street scape, including that of the large side roof extension at no. 62 and that recently granted planning permission at no. 84. As such, the proposed side extension at no. 60 would not appear out of keeping given the current context of the street scene. Furthermore, the proposed first floor side extension would be set down from the main house and set back from the front facade. Therefore, the original catslide roof would remain legible.

[name] have found in favour of the appellant in terms of the side extension, I conclude that the proposed rear extension would be harmful on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 2014, the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2023 and the provisions of the National Planning Police Framework. These policies and the Framework seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high quality design that positively contributes to the improvement of the environment and be of a scale and design that are appropriate to the building and locality. The Urban Design Guide SPD requires residential extensions to be of the highest quality and respond appropriately to the host building and streetscape.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed.