Appeal 6000072

The appeal is dismissed.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Demolition of existing lean-to garage and replacement with new double storey side return extension with pitched roof that extends beyond existing rear elevation. Introduction of side passage between boundary and property, construction of a single storey rear extension, 3 front rooflights and associated external alterations [Resubmission]". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

An amended plan was submitted at the appeal stage1, which relates to the front porch entrance being moved over to the left, thereby reducing the solid panel where it abuts the bay window. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage.

The proposed amendment would not result in a substantially different scheme. Nevertheless, it would materially alter the design aesthetic of the proposed development, which relates to the main issue in this appeal. This is also a matter which an interested party expressed views on at application stage. Therefore, in the interests of fairness to interested parties, I have considered the same plans that the Council determined the planning application on. To do otherwise would 1 [name] ([name]. (00)_203 (Rev. P01)) deprive those who should have been consulted on the change, the opportunity of such consultation.

An additional drawing was submitted at the appeal stage2, which shows the relationship of the proposed development with 41 [name] (No 41). This drawing does not purport to alter the nature of the proposed development. Therefore, I have considered the additional drawing as being for illustrative purposes only.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 43), a modestly-sized 2-storey semi-detached dwelling with an integral garage. No 43 exhibits stylistic influences common to the 1930’s, including rounded bay windows. It is situated in an attractive residential area consisting of semi-detached and detached dwellings of a broadly similar design, reflective of the inter-war period.

The existing porch at No 43 is integrated with the ground floor front bay window, and the proposed porch would maintain this arrangement. However, in contrast to the existing porch which is largely composed of glass, the proposed porch would incorporate a masonry wall which would obscure a portion of the bay window. The new porch would also be taller than the existing porch. The proposed porch would thereby compromise the prominence of the bay window. As the bay window is a notable feature of this 1930’s dwelling, the proposed porch would harm the appearance of No 43. The porches at No 41 and 76 [name] (No 76) do not impede full views of their respective bay windows, and accordingly their presence would not alter the harm identified.

[name].3.2 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) (SPD) refers to the ‘original house’. Considering the examples of side extensions given in Figure i.39 of the SPD, and the parameters for side extensions referred to at Figure i.40 of the SPD, which all denote the main body of the dwelling as being the ‘original house’, in this case the ‘original house’ should not include the integral garage.

It follows that the proposed 2-storey side extension would be more than 50% of the width of the original house, in conflict with [name].3.2 of the SPD. As a significantly wide addition to No 43, with a limited set-down from its ridge line, the proposed 2-storey side extension would not appear secondary in scale in relation to the existing building, in conflict with [name].3.2 of the SPD. The proposed new side entrance would only provide a small gap between No 43 and its side boundary. It would not adequately mitigate the substantial bulk and massing of the proposed 2-storey side extension in comparison with the remainder of No 43.

Moreover, the proposed hip-to-gable roof extension would conflict with paragraph i.68 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, generally, the Council do not support proposals to alter or to convert a sloped hip end roof into a flat gable end roof on the side of the house. This element of the proposed 2 Existing and [name] ([name]. (00)_202 (Rev. P01)) development would considerably add to the bulk and massing of the totality of the proposed additions to No 43.

The overly-dominant and prominent additions proposed to No 43 would overwhelm its presently modestly-sized proportions. Much of its period charm would be lost. The proposed roof design would reflect that at No 41. However, due to the width of the proposed 2-storey side extension, which would clearly exceed the width of the corresponding side extension at No 41, the proposed development would not complement the semi-detached pair of which No 43 forms a part.

39 [name] is a substantially-sized property, but the primary relationship of No [address] scene is with No 76 and 78 [name] (No 78). I note that both No 76 and No 78 have 2-storey side extensions. However, the ridge line of No 78 is noticeably staggered, whereas the proposed 2-storey side extension would only be set-down from the ridge of No 43 by a limited extent. Consequently, although a planning condition could be imposed to ensure that the proposed materials would match those of the existing dwelling, No 43 as extended would appear unduly bulky in its context, and would not sufficiently harmonise with the street scene in visual terms. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

The Council have calculated that the proposed 2-storey extension to the rear of No 43 would have a width of more than 70% of the original house, and this figure has not been disputed by the appellant. In combination with the proposed single-storey rear extension, the proposed extensions to the rear of No 43 would substantially increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling. Views of these elements of the proposed development would likely be limited from public vantage points, but they would be perceptible from the upper-floor rear windows of the properties to the north of the site. Again, these proposed additions to No 43 would subsume much of its original built form, which would be detrimental to its appearance, and in turn, to the character of the area.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would conflict with part i. of Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (adopted 2014) ([name]) which provides that, amongst other things, to achieve a high quality of design, all developments are expected to provide a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context by taking account of the scale, height, bulk and massing of the adjacent townscape, and with part ii. of Policy DH1 of the [name] which provides that, amongst other things, to achieve a high quality of design, all developments are expected to promote local distinctiveness by providing a site-specific design solution.

The proposed development would conflict with Policy DH(a) of the [name] which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for rear, side and other additions (including basements) should be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality.

The proposed development would conflict with part D 1) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021), which provides that development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

I have had regard to the Certificate of [name] or Development (Proposed) for the construction of a hip-to-gable loft conversion, rear dormer roof extension featuring Juliet balcony, together with the instillation of 2 rooflights to the front roof slope3 (Certificate of Lawfulness). I have no reason to doubt that this scheme could be implemented in the event that this appeal is dismissed. Nevertheless, the proposed development must be considered in its totality, as applied for. In this regard, the Certificate of Lawfulness scheme would increase the scale and massing of No 43, but as it would not incorporate a 2-storey side extension its impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the area would not be as pronounced as the proposed development. As such, the Certificate of Lawfulness scheme would be less harmful than the proposed development. It merits little weight in support of the proposed development.

I note the intention to construct the rear dormer at the same time as the hip-to-gable conversion the subject of this appeal. I have had regard to the copies of the e-mail and the plans submitted to the Council in this regard. However, this intention does not alter or overcome the adverse impacts identified on the main issue above, which would persist whether or not the dormer is constructed as intended.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.