Appeal 3345745

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing side extension and erection of a single storey side extension at [site address] , Eltham, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/0446/HD, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: CW082023-06 (Ground Floor Plan -as proposed-), CW082023-07R1 ([name] -as proposed-), CW082023-08R1 (Section A-A & [name] -as proposed-), CW082023-09R1 (Elevations -as proposed-) and the Site Location Plan ([name]: SGL330494).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the external surfaces of the existing dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is primarily characterised by large detached and semi-detached houses that are set back from the highway by front gardens and forecourts. Some houses have large side extensions, including two-storey Appeal Planning Officer APP/E5330/D/24/3345745 additions, which are visible within the streetscene. The two-storey, detached appeal dwelling at [site address] (No 124) is located at the end of [address] and shares a boundary with the footway on the adjacent [address] (A2). It faces the grounds of [name] and Crematorium and so there are no houses directly opposite. No 124 has a forecourt area with a front boundary constructed of brick and railings, behind which is some vegetation. There is also a tall side boundary and vegetation to the side boundary with the A2.

The width of the proposal would be more than 50% of the width of the original house and so would exceed what is typically expected for side extensions in terms of the guidance in The Royal Borough of [name]: Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD). Together with the depth of the proposal this would give the extension a substantial footprint.

Even so, the extension’s single-storey height, modest roof profile and its set back position relative to the highway and the front elevation of the house, would give it a suitably subordinate appearance and its materials would correspond with the host dwelling. Even when seen together with the single storey projection to the other side of the dwelling, the two-storey host would remain the dominant feature. Moreover, due to No 124’s position at the end of the street and the substantial boundary treatments in place, the extension would have a discreet presence from public vantage points particularly in the context of the large side additions to other dwellings on [address]. Therefore, whilst not fully adhering to the guidance in the SPD, this would not be harmful in this particular instance.

I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), specifically Policy DH1 (Design) and DH(a) ([name]) and Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) of The London Plan (2021) which together, amongst other things, seek development that achieves a high quality of design, which has a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality and which responds to the existing character of a place. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement, I recommend a condition to require that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, which is necessary in the interests of certainty. I also recommend that matching external materials are used to ensure that the development positively relates to the character and appearance of the dwelling.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.