Appeal 6000489

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.

In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this best describes the development proposed.

The appellant has submitted amended plans as part of the appeal which include the amendment of the balustrade/wall serving the proposed roof terrace.

The Planning Appeals Procedural Guide is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and what is considered by the Inspector at appeal should essentially be the same scheme as was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. No publicity has taken place with respect to these plans which has not afforded third parties a chance to comment on the changes. To accept these plans would potentially cause injustice to other parties. Therefore, having regard to the Wheatcroft principles and other subsequent case law, I have not taken these amended plans into consideration but have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans originally submitted to the Council.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the acceptability of the proposed flats, single storey extensions, rooflights and rear dormer, and I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion and will confine my consideration to the element of the development in dispute.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed roof terrace on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

The appeal property is a three-storey mid terraced property situated on [address] a predominantly residential street consisting of other similar dwellings with long linear gardens to their rear. The rear elevations of the properties possess uniformed two storey off shoots which are shared with a directly adjacent neighbour. Several properties possess modest single storey rear extensions as well as there being limited examples of rear dormers. Aside from this the legibility of the existing dwellings is clear which results in a harmonious uniformed character to the terrace.

The proposed first floor roof terrace and privacy screens would be read as a bulky, incongruous and alien addition to the rear elevation due to its dominant walling, excessive depth, and elevated siting. It would fail to positively respond to the surrounding built form, where elevated terraces with high enclosing walls are not a characteristic on [address]. It would unacceptably subsume the legibility of the two-storey rear offshoot; a key design feature of the existing dwelling and an important contributor to the uniformed character of the area. [name] note that the proposal would be clad in appropriately matching materials this would not mitigate the harm I have identified in regard to its design.

I therefore conclude that the proposed roof terrace would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. As such it would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1, Dh(a), H(c) and H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014). These policies seek, amongst other things, for high quality developments that respond appropriately to the sites context and character and improves the built environment. The development would also be contrary to the guidance contained in the Council’s Urban Design Guide (2023) which seeks to ensure that high quality new development is delivered across the borough that is inclusive and responds appropriately to its context.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision1 elsewhere in the borough where a proposal including a roof terrace was allowed. However, this scheme was for a roof terrace of a much more modest depth with a visually permeable balustrade. Accordingly, its circumstances are not directly comparable with those which apply in this appeal. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me.

I also note the appeal decision2 referenced by the appellant for a property elsewhere in London. This appears to centre around a main issue of living conditions which is not a matter of dispute between the parties in the case of the appeal scheme. In any event a lack of harm in regard to living conditions in regard to the appeal scheme is a neutral matter and does not alleviate the harm I have identified in regard to the main issue of character and appearance. 1 APP/E5330/W/24/3356247 2 APP/A5840/W/15/3129093

The Council did not identify any harm in respect to highway safety; however, an absence of harm in relation to this is a neutral factor in the overall planning balance.

The proposal would result in a net increase of one dwelling. This would be a minor increase in the Council’s overall housing number. The site is also in a location which hosts a range of services and key facilities. The proposal would also be likely to deliver short term economic benefits during construction. Upon completion and subsequent occupation, future occupiers would also provide economic benefits to the local area through their use of local shops and services. The incorporation of sustainable transport modes such as cycling as part of the scheme is noted. These benefits are factors that weigh to a modest degree in the scheme’s favour.

I have nevertheless identified that it would conflict with the development plan policy designed to protect the character and appearance of the area. This policy is consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of ensuring well designed places. This alignment increases the weight given to the policy conflict. Therefore, the conflict with this policy results in the development conflicting with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework requires that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, developments should be granted planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

This applies to applications involving the provision of housing in situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It therefore follows that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of the proposed development, the starting point is therefore that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In this case the adverse effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the Framework.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The outcome of the Framework paragraph 11 d) process above indicates that the decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan.

The proposed development would result in a minor increase in the Council’s overall housing number and would also bring a small number of additional residents to the area who would contribute to the local economy. When combined with the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, collectively, I give these matters significant weight in favour of the proposed development.

However, the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area, attracts greater significant weight that outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict.

For the reasons set out 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.