Appeal 6000135

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for extension of the front porch at [site address] [site address] , Eltham, Greenwich, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3561/HD, and the plans submitted with it and 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 following approved plans: Location Plan, FL239-A101.1, FL239-A102.1, FL239-A103.1, FL239-A104.1, FL239-A205.1, FL239-A207.1, FL239-A208.1, FL239-A309.1,

[name] 2024 the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework. [name] have made my determination against the updated national policy context, the changes are not fundamental to matters which are determinative to the outcome of this appeal.

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

The appeal site comprises an end of terrace property within an area which is characterised primarily by terraced and semi-detached properties. There is a consistency and regularity to the layout of the area which gives it a planned, orderly character.

The terrace which the appeal site is part of is linear in form with the end two dwellings projecting further forward towards the road, book-ending the terrace. Terraces of a similar form are evident elsewhere in the surrounding streets.

The appeal property currently has a small canopy above the front door with small side walls. It is proposed to provide an enclosed porch with a pitched roof, building off the existing walls with glazed elevations.

I noted at my site visit that several properties on [site address] and surrounding streets have been extended to provide porch structures including the porch at the other end of the terrace of which the appeal site is part (No.33). Therefore, although there is consistency in the overall layout of the area, there is some variety in terms of porches. In this context, the loss of the original canopy would not significantly erode the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the construction of a porch in this location would not be an alien or incongruous addition to the area.

The Council contend that the existing porch at no.33 is not a positive example to replicate. However, the proposed porch would differ in design than that referred to. The existing side walls would be retained, and it would utilise glazing which would result in a lighter-weight structure and allow the original wall to remain visible. Consequently, the proposed porch would be sympathetic to its context and would not result in an uncharacteristic addition to the property.

Whilst the appeal property is relatively prominent, being closer to the road than the properties immediately to the south, the porch would be modest in scale, being no wider than the existing porch and not excessively deep. As such it would not appear unduly overbearing or dominant in the street scene. In this respect the proposal accords with advice in the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2023) which states that front extensions and porches should be minor and should not alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street.

Overall, the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the area. It would therefore accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan ([name] 2021) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] ([name] 2014). Together these seek to ensure that developments are well designed and take account of the context of the site and that extensions are of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality.

No conditions have been suggested by the Council. I have considered what conditions would be appropriate having regard to the tests in the Framework and advice in Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. The plans are clear in respect of the proposed materials and there are no other conditions which I consider necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.