Appeal 3351667

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and construction of a part one, part two storey side extension, and 50mm render to front and back of property at [site address] , Eltham, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref 24/1643/HD, subject to the following conditions:

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

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LP-01 A, 101 A, 102 A, 103 A, 104 A, 105 A, 106 A, 107 A, 201 A, 202 A, 203 A, 204 A, 205 A, 206 A and 207 A..

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of The Royal Borough of Greenwich and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The property is an end of terraced house which sits within a wider estate of housing of similar scale and form, where terraces front a regular grid pattern of roads. Although a number of properties in the immediate vicinity and wider area have been altered and extended, there remains a generally consistent character to the area in terms of layout that derives from the strong building lines with the clear building frontages along terraces, and the uniformity in scale of houses.

The set-back of terraces from the highway and regular street pattern of long streets enable long views in the area, and this contributes to a generally spacious feel. The gaps between the terraces along [address] are modest in width, with there being a number of single storey additions or fences to the side, and consequently these gaps play a limited role in providing any spacious appearance to the area; I saw at my site visit it is only when standing directly in front of a gap that they can be appreciated. More notable to the feeling of spaciousness and distance are trees to the rear of the [address] properties on the northern side that are on the railway embankment, as these can be seen above the houses and in longer views along the road and within the estate.

The proposed extension would see the demolition of the existing garage. The two storey addition would, at ground floor, be set on the same building line as the original garage, which is in line with the front elevation of the house. At first floor the extension would be set back 0.5m from the front elevation, and at roof level the ridge line would be lower than that of the house. The front roof plane would be set back from the roof plane of the hipped roof to the house, and would follow the same angle as the roof. The width of the side extension would be less than half that of the existing house.

The design, scale and form of the proposals create an extension that is clearly subordinate to the main house, and which would appear as a later addition that does not overwhelm the house or the terrace. The extension closely accords with the specific guidance set out in the Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) regarding the proportions and design of side extensions.

The SPD recognises that the view between houses and the proportions of rows of terraces can contribute to the character of the streetscape, and that two storey side extensions are likely to have a greater impact on the character and setting of the street. The SPD highlights the need for side extensions to be designed to avoid a terracing effect or the loss of the open character between properties. I have commented above that the gaps between houses in this instance play a limited role in contributing to the spacious feeling of the area. By being set-back from the front elevation, set-down from the ridgeline, and with leaving some gap to the neighbouring house, in my judgement there would not be any material effect on the character and setting of the street, or there to be a terracing effect that leads to an appreciable loss of open character.

The proposals show the rendering of the building. I saw a number of houses in the area, including on [address], have renders of various materials and colours. The alterations to the property in this manner would not appear out of context with the area.

There are windows in the flank elevation of the adjoining house of [address], which lies to the south east of No. 10. I am informed the windows are to a landing at first floor, and secondary windows to rooms at first floor and kitchen at ground floor. Based on what I have read and seen at the site visit I consider that, whilst the proposed extension would bring the building closer to those windows, the distance retained would be sufficient to ensure no material loss of light. The secondary nature of those windows reaffirms my view on this.

On the main issue I therefore conclude the proposals would be consistent with the objectives of seeking good design as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, and there would be no conflict with the relevant development plan policies, namely Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), whose general aim is to seek to ensure residential extensions are of a scale and design appropriate to the area. The proposals would also satisfy the objectives of the SPD in seeking high quality design. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The Council suggested a number of conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. The condition requiring matching materials is not appropriate, given that render is proposed. The drawings show the render and so I have modified the condition to refer to that, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary in the interests of precision.