Appeal 6000346

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Eltham Palace Conservation Area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a large detached house situated on a generous plot within a residential area. The dwelling is a two-storey hipped roof building with a conservatory and single storey extension to the rear. Although the property is not listed and is some distance from the nearest listed buildings, it lies within the Eltham Palace Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage asset.

Having regard to the [name] 2008 (CACA), the special significance of the CA derives in part from its historic landscapes of great archaeological, architectural and ecological value including the remains of successive medieval royal palaces, 16th, 17th and 18th century buildings and an [name] country house. The CA possesses a non-urban and predominantly rural character with residential development concentrated principally along [address] which bisects it and along [name] which is the route to [name].

The CACA recognises that [address] is a pleasant development of six detached properties built in 1959 behind the historic wall on [name] and thus discreetly located. The appeal property makes a positive contribution to the architectural quality of the CA as it forms one of these similarly designed, well-proportioned buildings.

The Council’s adopted Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD) provides guidance on rear extensions, stating that they should respond appropriately to the scale of the existing building and the size of the garden. It outlines that a 3.6m rear projection is typically considered appropriate but projections beyond this can be considered for certain typologies. 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 of the existing building and by reducing the width of the extension to half the plot width, amongst other things.

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.

It is proposed to replace the existing rear additions with a rear extension comprising two double storey hipped roof projections and a single storey glazed link connecting them with a roof terrace above, smaller than an earlier scheme refused by the Council1. There is no dispute that the design of the proposed windows and doors would be in keeping with the style of the existing dwelling.

The two storey projections would extend above the eaves of the original house but would be lower than the existing building ridge, and their hipped roof profile would reflect the existing roofscape. Given the scale of the house and garden, the roof height and 4m depth of the new double storey additions and glazed link would not be out of proportion with the existing structure or plot size. Further, due to the modest scale of the privacy railing and screen bounding the modern roof terrace and its set back between the proposed two storey rear elements, this would not be an incongruous addition.

However, the two storey projections would be flush with the sides of the dwelling. Given the lack of set in from the sides of the existing house, the appeal scheme would create long high flank walls and side expanses of roof, appearing as a bulky addition which would not be subservient to the original building. The proposed development would not be highly visible from public vantage points in the CA. Nonetheless, as it would be evident in private views from neighbouring properties and between the buildings in the private [address], the proposal would not reflect the architectural quality of properties in this part of the CA.

There are various other extensions in the area, including a two-storey rear addition at [address] which the Council approved in 20132. Although this postdates the designation of the CA and the publication of the CACA, it was prior to the adoption of the SPD and relevant development plan policies. It demonstrates that such large additions without side insets harmfully dominate the appearance of the original structure. 1 Planning application ref: 24/4207/HD 2 Planning application ref: 12/2777/HD

There is reference to an appeal allowed for a loft conversion at [address] in

As that dwelling has a different design and that proposal related to dormers rather than a rear extension, it is not comparable to the scheme before me.

For the reasons set out, the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. As the scheme would only be visible in private views and partly visible from a small private road, this would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm, though this must be given great weight.

The Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. The appeal scheme would result in a larger house with more living space for its occupants which is a private benefit. I have not been directed to any public benefits in this case and consequently there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm I have identified.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. It would be contrary to Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] 2014 (CSDP). Together, these require developments to be of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality and preserve or enhance heritage assets, amongst other things. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework.

The appeal dwelling is at a comparable level and set back a similar distance to the neighbouring detached house at [address] (No 1), so the rear facades of the original buildings roughly align. The single storey conservatory and extension on the dwelling extend beyond the original rear face of the building. Similar to the appeal property, No 1 is a wide two storey structure with many windows facing onto a sizeable rear garden. Both houses are set away from the mutual boundary, creating a reasonable gap between the buildings.

The SPD seeks to resist extensions that create an unacceptable sense of enclosure or appear overbearing from neighbouring properties and gardens. The proposed development would be a sizeable addition, extending beyond the rear building line and visible from the property at No 1. Nevertheless, due to the width of the neighbouring house and the space between it and the proposed extension, an open outlook of the large garden from the rear openings at No 1 would be retained. As such, the appeal scheme would not dominate the outlook nor create an undue sense of enclosure to the occupants of this neighbouring property when using their rear rooms.

The impact of the proposal on sunlight to the adjacent dwelling is not a concern of the Council. As the development would avoid encroaching on the 45-degree angle from the windows at No 1, both vertically and horizontally, it would meet the BRE guidelines outlined in the SPD and ensure no unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring rooms.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause a harmful loss of outlook to the occupiers of [address]. It would accord with 3 Appeal ref: APP/E5330/D/20/3247727 Policy DH(b) of the CSDP where it requires developments to not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by resulting in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure, amongst other things.

The proposal would result in the removal of at least one tree which the appellant’s [name] assesses as being of low value. The Council’s Tree Officer raises no objection to the proposed tree works and I have no reason to disagree.

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