Appeal 6000334

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 37), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated in a residential area. Although detached dwellings are present in the locality, semi-detached dwellings predominate. As the pair of semi-detached dwellings comprising No 37 and [address] (No 35) are located close to a junction, they occupy a prominent position in the street scene. I observed at my site visit that the garage shown on the existing ground floor plan had already been demolished.

The application now under appeal is a revised application, following the dismissal of appeal decision [name]/E5330/D/23/3314613 in May 2023. Several alterations to the previous design have been made, including (amongst others) that the 2- storey element of the proposed development does not now project beyond the rear wall of the dwelling, and that the rear extension is now entirely single-storey rather than part 2-storey.

I observed all of the examples of varying roofscapes between semi-detached pairs highlighted by the appellant, including the 2 dwellings opposite the site. The differing use of gables and hipped roofs on semi-detached pairs is evident in the area. Indeed, Nos 35 and 37 are reflective of this character, in that No 37 has previously been extended via a loft conversion, incorporating a hip-to-gable end, a rear dormer, and 3 rooflights to the front roof slope, and No 35 has been altered via a 2-storey side extension with a hipped roof. No 37’s gable end contrasts with No 35’s hipped roof, such that there is little symmetry between these dwellings.

Whilst the massing and form of the proposed 2-storey side extension would bear similarities with the corresponding side extension at No 35, the roof form of the proposed 2-storey side extension would not be reflective of the expansive roof form at the western-most wing of No 35 in terms of its maximum height, nor its overall scale. Accordingly, the proposed 2-storey side extension would serve to considerably exacerbate the existing degree of asymmetry between the 2 dwellings, over-and-above the variation in their roof forms which already exists. The resulting degree of asymmetry would noticeably exceed that which is common in the local area. This would undermine the pair’s contribution to the aesthetics of the street scene.

Moreover, as the flank elevation of the proposed 2-storey side extension would only be broken up by 2 centrally-positioned windows, it would present as a largely blank and featureless façade, which would not complement No 37’s design. As a result, although the materials used throughout the proposed development would be acceptable, No 37’s attractive appearance would be undermined. The combination of the above-mentioned factors would harm the character and appearance of the area.

It is important to note that since the above-mentioned appeal decision was issued, the SPD1 has been adopted. Paragraph i.78 of the SPD provides that, amongst other things, 2-storey side extensions to semi-detached houses will not be supported. The proposed development conflicts with this guidance. Given the adverse impacts identified to both No 37 and the semi-detached pair of which No 37 forms a part (described above), this unambiguous conflict with paragraph i.78 of the SPD is a matter which strongly weighs against the proposed development.

The proposed rear extension would fall short of the recommended 300mm gap between it and the 1st floor window sill, mentioned at paragraph i.91 of the SPD. Nonetheless, this figure is not a strict requirement. Although the rear extension would add a degree of bulk to No 37, the maximum height of the rear extension would match the existing single-storey rear extension at No 35, which similarly has a minimal gap to its 1st floor window sills. Additionally, the proposed rear extension’s roof pitch, materials, and depth, would all mirror No 35’s rear extension. Hence, it would seamlessly integrate with No 35’s rear extension. It would therefore appear well-resolved in its context. Even so, this is not a matter which would overcome the significant harm arising from the proposed 2-storey side extension, mentioned above.

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 ii. 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 promote local distinctiveness by providing a site-specific design solution, 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 D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that development proposals should 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) 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 would provide enlarged living accommodation at No 37, which would benefit its current and future occupiers. However, this would mainly comprise a private benefit. It has not been demonstrated that any economic benefits arising from the construction phase of the proposed development would be significant. It follows that the totality of the benefits of the proposed development would not be significant in planning terms. Collectively these benefits merit little weight in favour of the proposed development.

Conversely, the proposed development would not contribute towards the creation of high quality places, which the Framework2 makes clear is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. As such, these benefits 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.