Appeal 6000285

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on the setting and significance of the Progress Estate Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential area. This part of [address] mainly consists of hipped roof semi-detached and detached houses, many with ground floor rear extensions. Whilst the adjoining dwelling and a property much further along the road also have two storey rear additions, most houses do not have upper floor projections which gives some consistency to the rear building form. The Progress Estate Conservation Area (CA) lies to the rear of the site.

Having regard to the [name], the special significance of the CA derives in part from being a very fine early example of a garden suburb townscape design constructed in 1915 to house munitions workers at [name]. It includes a picturesque street layout, green spaces and a cottage townscape style built at a relatively low density.

The appeal site abuts properties in [address] which are within the CA. The historic terraced cottages in this part of the CA have a very different character to the suburban development behind in [address] and the good sized gardens mean there is a significant distance between the buildings. Development along this part of [address] is largely close knit which limits public views of the houses along [address], though they are visible in rear private views from the cottages. Given these factors, the appeal property does not positively contribute to the setting and significance of the CA.

The proposal includes a part single, part two storey rear extension. The Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD) indicates that development should respond to the surrounding context and includes some references to symmetric design. It seeks to resist extensions that dominate the existing building, requiring them to be an appropriate scale. It states that 3.6m projections are typically considered appropriate for single storey extensions.

The SPD requires careful consideration of the scale, bulk and massing of two storey extensions, indicating that they must not overwhelm the existing building. This can be achieved by maintaining appropriate distances between the extension roof and the eaves and reducing the width of the extension to half the plot width, amongst other things. It states that double storey extensions are not normally supported where the existing building has two storeys or less.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that the creation of high quality, beautiful buildings is fundamental, requiring developments to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and sympathetic to local character. It outlines that development that is not well designed should be refused, and that significant weight should be given to local design policies taking into account any local SPDs.

The proposal would extend across most of the building width, projecting up to 4.36m from the rear façade, with the double storey part reaching the existing building eaves. It would occupy a large proportion of the existing building’s rear face and project beyond the adjoining extension, further than the 3.6m outlined in the SPD. Due to its height, width and depth, the proposed extension would be a dominant and bulky addition, failing to appear subservient to the existing building.

Further, the introduction of a flat roof at first floor level would not be sympathetic to the hipped roof profile of the original building. The scale of the new extension would be evident in private views from neighbouring properties, with the upper part visible from [address] between the existing buildings. Given that it would be some distance from the CA and attached to a suburban house which is substantially different in character to the properties in [address], the proposed addition would not harm the setting and significance of the CA.

The appeal scheme would have a similar form to the adjoining extension at [address], creating some symmetry between the two. However, the existing addition was approved in 1988, substantially predating relevant development plan policies, the SPD and the Framework. The neighbouring extension reinforces my concerns that the proposed structure would harmfully dominate the building and appear discordant.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 2014 (CSDP). Together, these seek high quality design, with the scale and design of rear additions required to be appropriate to the building and locality, amongst other things. I have found that the proposal would not harm the setting and significance of the adjacent CA. Thus, it would accord with Policy HC1 of the LP and Policies DH3 and DH(h) of the CSDP where they seek to protect heritage assets, including the setting of Conservation Areas.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including the use of the property as a house in multiple occupation and the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.