Appeal 6000159

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed rear wing first floor extension to create level access with existing rear garden, elevated approximately 2.7m above the ground level at [site address] , Plumstead, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/3908/HD, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the followings 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 drawing numbers: (PA) 0.1-0.2 Rev P1 Location Plan; (PA) 2.0-2.2 Rev P1 [name]; (PA) 2.3-2.5 Rev P1 [name]; (PA) 2.6-2.8 Rev P1 [name], all dated 28 November 2024.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows on the side elevation serving the bathroom and study/home office have been fitted with obscured glazing. Once installed, the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal site is an attractive Victorian end-of-terrace dwelling. Part of the land to the rear is at a significantly higher level and results in a raised rear garden area behind a retaining wall.

The proposed extension would exceed the guidance set out in the Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document adopted October 2023 (SPD) in terms of its width and depth. However, it would be constructed above the existing single storey kitchen and bathroom, set down below the eaves of the main house, include a sloping roof and constructed of materials to match the existing dwelling. As a result, the proposed extension would not be an incongruous addition. It would appear subservient to the existing dwelling and would not affect the available garden area.

The proposal would be visible from [address] which is located to the rear of the appeal site. However, [address] is at a significantly higher level than the appeal site and there is a high fence along the rear of the properties in the terrace. This, together with the sloping nature of the proposed roof, means that the appeal proposal would not be particularly visible. Accordingly, it would not appear as an overly bulky or dominant addition to the dwelling.

The proposal would not conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan adopted March 2021 (TLP) which seeks to optimise the capacity of sites and ensure that developments respond to the site’s context. In addition, no conflict would arise with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] adopted July 2014 (LP) which seek to ensure that developments contribute positively to the built environment by taking account of the established layout and spatial character including the scale, height, bulk and massing of the adjacent townscape.

The neighbouring property, [address] benefits from a single storey rear projection along the shared boundary with the appeal site. This is similar in size and scale to the existing rear projection at the appeal site. The rear wall of the proposed extension would be visible from the first floor window of No. 3, but it would not affect the outlook from that window to any harmful extent due to the distance of the window from the shared boundary.

I was able to see that from the ground floor window on the rear elevation of the appeal property, views are constrained by its own single storey rear projection to the extent that whilst the eaves were visible, the roof was not. Accordingly, views from the ground floor window of No. 3 would be similarly constrained and the appeal proposal would not be visible.

Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy D3 of TLP and Policy DH(b) of the LP which seek to ensure that developments respond to the site’s context and not result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure.

The appeal site is located outside but adjacent to the Plumstead Common Conservation Area (CA). For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would not be visible from the CA and its character and appearance would be preserved.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposed works would obstruct the existing drainage system or cause uneven settling.

Due to the relative positioning of the appeal site with the existing dwellings on [address], the proposal would not result in an increased sense of enclosure for those occupiers. A condition to secure obscure glazing to the windows in the side elevation of the proposed extension would prevent any overlooking and loss of privacy.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.