Appeal 6000339

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single storey rear wrap around extension and associated external alterations at [site address] , [site address] , Charlton, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0943/HD, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SP-00; SP-01; SP-03; SP-04; SP-06; SP-07; SP- 08; SP-11; SP-12; SP-14; SP-15; the Planning Fire Safety Strategy; and the completed Householder and other minor extensions in [name] 2 and 3 form.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out in the banner heading above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and decision notice that the proposal is for a single storey rear wrap around extension and associated external alterations. The decision in paragraph 1 above reflects this approach.

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

The appeal site comprises a two storey end-terraced dwelling in a mainly residential area with industrial development to the north. It abuts [address], a small cul de sac containing two electrical substations adjacent to the property. Houses in the locality largely comprise terraced properties with large rear outriggers. In common with many other dwellings nearby, the appeal building has a single storey rear extension beyond the outrigger, and a conservatory alongside. Thus, the area is characterised by extended terraced houses and some commercial buildings.

The Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD) seeks to resist extensions that dominate the existing building, requiring them to be an appropriate scale. Whilst 3.6m projections are typically considered appropriate for single storey rear extensions, it states that projections beyond this can be considered for certain typologies where neighbourly amenity is not compromised. Where the original rear wall is stepped, the SPD indicates that each of these will form the rear wall of the original dwelling for the purpose of applying this limitation. It discourages extensions that do not follow this principle unless it is demonstrated that the impact on neighbouring properties and amenity is negligible.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires developments to be sympathetic to local character. It states 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 is for a single storey flat roof rear extension around the existing outrigger. As the part beyond the outrigger would be the same depth as the existing projection in this location, there is no dispute that this element of the scheme would be acceptable. The extension would project around 7m from the main rear wall of the house, significantly further than the existing conservatory on this side and substantially beyond the projection distance referred to in the SPD. It would also be around 3.1m high, compared to the existing conservatory height which ranges from around 2.57m to 2.8m.

The proposed scheme would create a ground floor wraparound extension, but it would replace an existing rear projection and side conservatory which together extend along the full width of the house and beyond the length of the outrigger. Whilst it would be higher and longer than the existing conservatory, the proposed projection would obscure only a small additional amount of the main rear wall than the existing extension, sited significantly below the sill level of the window above.

In addition, the proposal would not project beyond the neighbouring extension at 2 [name] and one of the adjacent substation structures. Further, much of the appeal scheme would be screened in views from [address] by the substation buildings and the high boundary wall. The rear projection would be sited at the end of a terrace with no houses beyond and, in line with the aims of the SPD, the Council does not find any unacceptable impacts on neighbouring occupiers. Given the circumstances in this case, the proposed extension would not dominate the building nor appear overly bulky or incongruous in its setting.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 2014. Together, these require developments to take account of spatial character and be of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality, amongst other things.

I have considered whether conditions are required having regard to the statutory tests outlined in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, including the fire safety strategy and the flood mitigation measures. This is in the interest of certainty.

For the reasons given above, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.