Appeal 6000454

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of terraced dwellings and larger blocks of flats. The terrace in which the appeal site sits forms a distinctive layout as the line of terraces snake around the shape of [address]. Properties within this group are defined by their flat roof form and inset sections, as demonstrated at [site address] (No 19). No 19 is currently set back from its neighbouring dwellings at first and second floor level. A previous appeal granted permission for a flat roof front extension at ground floor level, the visibility of which is limited due to its modest scale and its positioning behind the brick boundary wall.

The inset sections provide a degree of uniformity to the terraces. While the proposed first-floor extension would sit within the footprint of the existing ground-floor extension and align with the building line of the terrace, it would appear awkward due to the negative space at first-floor level. This would result in the second-storey addition appearing as an incongruous feature that fails to reflect the established form and overall layout of the dwellings within the block. The proposed mono-pitched roof would not significantly reduce the overbearing appearance of the extension. Although the amenity space would remain unchanged, this benefit does not outweigh the harm the proposal would cause to the character of the area. In stark contrast, the ground-floor element previously allowed at appeal has a far less imposing presence due to its single-storey nature and its screening behind the brick boundary wall. The proposed extension, by virtue of its greater height and higher visibility, would lack these mitigating factors and would therefore become an unacceptably dominant addition to the host dwelling.

I conclude that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2023) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014). The proposal would also be contrary to section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regard to paragraph 135 which requires policies to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and establish or maintain a strong sense of place.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.