Appeal 6000456

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 is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] (No 1) is located in a predominantly residential area. It is mainly characterised by semi-detached and terraced two-storey dwellings often with generous gaps between, particularly at first floor level. Together with the prevailing hipped roof forms, this provides a notable spaciousness to the development pattern.

No 1 sits at the end of a terrace of four dwellings with a substantial gap between its side elevation and the Eltham Green Fellowship Church. The dwellings within the host terrace are all of similar width and share a consistent roof form which is hipped at either end. Combined with the spacing between windows, symmetry of the porches and the facing material arrangement, this gives the terrace considerable balance. Together, these elements positively contribute to the order and spacious characteristics of the street.

I understand that the width of the proposed dwelling is less than the width of those considered under previous applications that were previously dismissed at appeal (APP/E5330/W/23/3331105 and APP/E5330/W/22/3312861). Even so, the mass of the proposal and its projection from the end of the terrace would substantially reduce openness between the terrace and the church. This denser pattern of development would also appear at odds with the spacious characteristics of the area.

In addition, and notwithstanding the matching facing materials, the dwelling’s narrower width, lower ridgeline, set back front elevation and tighter window arrangement when compared to other dwellings in the row would significantly unbalance the terrace to the further detriment of the street scene. Even though the first floor rear projection would be less visible from the street, this would not overcome the other design and layout issues identified.

The cited examples relate to side extensions to dwellings rather than new dwellings and so are not directly comparable to the appeal. Furthermore, the evidence before me indicates that the permissions at 13 and [address] and [address] were granted over 11 years ago, and prior to the adoption of the current Local Plan or London Plan. In any case, these examples do not justify the site-specific harm identified having regard to the prevailing characteristics of the area and the balance of the host terrace.

I conclude, the proposed development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies H5, H(c) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) which requires development to respond to the existing character, to achieve a high quality of housing design and an integrated environment, that infill development will only be favourably considered where the character of the area is maintained with particular regard to the scale, design and density of the development, and that all developments provide a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context by taking account of the established layout and spatial character.

Whilst the appellant’s Design & [name] sets out that the proposal would result in acceptable development in terms of living conditions, quality of accommodation, noise and disturbance, transportation, trees, refuse and recycling facilities, and accessibility, these are usually expected planning requirements rather than matters which justify the harm identified.

The Council has acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that its supply currently stands at 2.38 years. There is no evidence before me to suggest this figure is not accurate.

The provision of a single dwelling would make a very limited but positive contribution to the Council’s housing land shortfall and to the diversity of the local housing stock. It would also result in some limited social and economic benefits associated with the construction and future occupation of the proposed development. In the context of a single dwelling, these matters attract modest weight in favour of the proposal.

However, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In this regard there would also be conflict with the development plan. I find that this is a matter of overriding concern and substantially and demonstrably outweighs the modest benefits of the proposal in this instance.

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.