Appeal 6000237

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for proposed two storey side and single storey rear extension to end of terrace dwelling at [site address] , Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/4092/HD, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing numbers: 1020_S(P10)_001 Proposed Site Block and Location Plan; 1020_S(EP10)_200 Existing and [name] and Sections; 1020_S(EP10)_100 Existing and [name].

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The appeal property is located at the end of a terrace of four properties, in an area characterised by short terraces of residential properties with gaps between which give the area a spacious feel.

The proposed two storey extension to the side would only marginally exceed half the width of the existing property. Whilst the Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document adopted October 2023 (SPD) suggests that extensions should also be set back from the front elevation and down from the ridgeline, the existing terrace has a continuous front elevation and roofline. To do so in this instance would be at odds with the existing character and uniformity of the terrace. It would also be at odds with other developments in the street which have been carried out in a similar manner1 on terraces which also have continuous elevations and rooflines. In this respect, the appeal proposal responds appropriately to the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the area generally.

The proposed two storey extension would replace an existing single storey pitched roof garage to the side of the property. The existing garage forms the boundary with [address] and therefore the proposed extension would not reduce the open character of the area to any appreciable extent.

Part of the proposed single storey extension to the rear would exceed the guidance set out in the SPD in terms of its extent of projection. However, the SPD indicates that projections beyond 3.6m may be appropriate where it would not compromise the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and goes on to explain that a flat roof form is generally preferred as it helps to reduce the overall bulk and impact of an extension. In this respect, I saw that [address] had a large rear extension with a pitched roof along the boundary with the appeal site. Consequently, the appeal proposal with a flat roof would not have a harmful impact on the neighbouring occupiers and would not be highly visible from [address] above the existing boundary wall and fence.

Together, the proposed single and two storey extensions would not be harmful additions to the property. They would not appear incongruous, out of place nor harm the open character of the area. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] adopted July 2014 which seek high quality development of a scale and design which is appropriate to the building and the locality.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. It is also necessary to require the use of matching materials, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

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