Appeal 6000233

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 41), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a row of 2-storey semi-detached dwellings in a predominantly residential area. Whilst a small number of exceptions to the established design aesthetic exist, including [address], much of [address] in the vicinity of the site consists of semi-detached dwellings of a similar design, with hipped roofs.

The proposed rear dormer would span across the full width of No 41’s rear elevation. Its maximum height would be equal to that of No 41’s roof ridge. With a depth of approximately 3 metres, it would be considerable in size and scale when compared with No 41 as existing. As such, it would not be secondary in scale to the main roof, contrary to the guidance given in paragraph i.67 of the SPD1. Due to its size and scale, it would not harmonise well with No 41’s existing appearance. It would appear when seen from the rear gardens of nearby dwellings as an overly-dominant and bulky feature upon No 41’s rear elevation. Its bulk would be accentuated by the proposed use of full-height clear glazed windows, which is not a common feature on the site’s side of [address].

I observed that [address], which has previously been extended with (amongst other alterations) a gable end, and [address], which has been significantly extended by way of (amongst other alterations) a 2-storey side extension, both appear imbalanced in comparison with the other half of their 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) respective semi-detached pairs. Hence, these examples do not represent desirable precedents.

In a similar vein, the hip-to-gable element of the proposed loft conversion would result in No 41 appearing noticeably imbalanced in comparison with the other half of the semi-detached pair of which it forms a part, which has not been extended in this way. The new gable end would also combine with the remainder of the side elevation to create a largely blank and featureless façade, thereby undermining No 41’s presently attractive contribution to the street scene. The proposed use of matching tiles and render would not adequately mitigate these negative effects. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

Whilst it is recognised that the potential exists for nearby dwellings to extend through the use of permitted development rights, this appeal must be determined on the basis of the currently-prevailing circumstances. This is not a matter which alters my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part i. of Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (adopted 2014) (Local Plan) 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 iii. of Policy DH(a) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all new roof extensions should be designed to respect the scale and character of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area.

The proposed development would also conflict with part 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021), which provides that development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.

The proposed development could result in benefits to the Council in relation to Council tax. The Planning Practice Guidance however makes it clear that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for a development to raise money for a local authority or other government body2. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

Reference has been made to the potential exercise of permitted development rights under Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), which could potentially include the formation of a hip-to-gable roof extension with a rear dormer. I have no reason to doubt that this right would be exercised in the event that this appeal is dismissed. 2 Paragraph 21b-[phone]

The appellant has stated that the proposed dormer would not qualify as permitted development due to its scale. A dormer of a lesser scale constructed via Class B would likely appear less imposing upon the rear elevation of No 41. No plans or drawings have been provided to substantiate the appellant’s assertion that visual fragmentation would result from a smaller or stepped dormer addition to the rear of No 41. As it has not been demonstrated that the exercise of Class B would result in a more harmful development than that proposed, this matter merits little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would provide additional living space at No 41, which would accord with contemporary expectations, to the benefit of the current and future occupiers of No 41. As this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it merits little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would make an effective use of land, and would provide economic benefits to the local area by, amongst other things, providing work for construction professionals. Whilst these matters are supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), it has not been demonstrated that the totality of these benefits in this case would be significant. In combination, these matters merit little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would not contribute towards the creation of high quality places, which the Framework emphasises is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. As a matter of planning judgement I therefore find that the collective benefits of the proposed development, which would be minimal in planning terms, would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

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.