Appeal 6000116

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal building is located in an area predominated by terraces and semi-detached dwellings that each display a high degree of symmetry of form. Some of these buildings display modest alterations at ground floor level. Nonetheless, a high degree of consistency remains apparent at first floor level due to the presence of symmetrical roofs and an absence of first floor extensions. This creates a pleasing simplicity of form and consistency in the pattern of development. These are defining positive features of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would be set back from the existing front elevation, lower in height than the existing roof, and would be comprised of matching materials. Also, the width of the proposed extension has been reduced relative to the previously refused scheme. As such, it would be less than half the width of the existing dwelling and is said to retain a 1.1m gap to its side boundary. This would comply with the principles for side extensions set out in the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (October 2023) (SPD). The appeal site is adjacent to the garden of a terrace on [address]. Consequently, a gap between the appeal scheme and the nearest building would be retained.

However, given the absence of built form between the appeal site and houses on [address], the proposed side and rear extension would be highly visible when approaching the appeal site from [address]. From there, the side and rear extension would appear as a bulky addition, extending well back into its rear garden over two storeys. Also, the proposed roof line at first floor level would appear cumbersome relative to the simple hipped roofs that are characteristic of terraces in the area. It would thus appear noticeably at odds with the simple form of terraced buildings that is prevalent here. As such, whilst it would comply with some aspects of the SPD as described, it would be contrary to its overall aim of achieving high quality design that responds to its context.

I have had regard to the examples of other extensions of similar forms in the surrounding area1, including at [address]. I note that No 5 is situated adjacent to another terrace. Consequently, its side elevation is not as visible or prominent on [address] as is the case here. In any event, that extension and others in the locality do not justify allowing a scheme that I consider would result in a harmful change to the appearance of the terrace and would detract from positive characteristics of the surrounding area.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. As a result, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021), and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (July 2014). These generally seek to ensure proposals are designed to respond to the characteristics of the surrounding area.

I appreciate that the proposal is sought as a comprehensive solution rather than a more piecemeal approach using permitted development rights. Moreover, I consider that in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful it appears reasonably likely that the appellant would seek to use permitted development rights to enlarge the building. However, no substantive evidence is before me to indicate that implementation of permitted development rights would lead to a more harmful outcome. Therefore, the potential fallback position does not alter my reasoning. Furthermore, improving the appellant’s accommodation as proposed would be a private benefit. As such, it is not sufficient to justify the enduring harm that would arise from the proposed design. Whilst it may be smaller than the previous scheme, the proposal would still give rise to an unacceptable degree of harm.

Consequently, for the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.