Appeal 6000511

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘[name], [name], [name] and [address]’ at [site address] Woodcroft, Eltham, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1139/HD, and subject to the following

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: A003 - 2D ‘[name] (Site Location & Block Plan) and PL01 ‘[name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential and is characterised by a mixture of terraced and semi-detached dwellings, featuring largely white render to their facades. [site address] Woodcroft (No [site address] ) is an end terraced property, and sits within a cluster of dwellings, formed in a crescent layout, with surrounding grassed areas and parking spaces at the centre. The visibility of No [site address] is limited due to its orientation and positioning behind both its adjoining neighbouring dwelling 6 Woodcroft and detached neighbouring dwelling 10 Woodcroft (No 10). No 10’s front elevation sits slightly forward of No [site address] ’s. The property currently features a single storey side element with an adjoined PVC conservatory.

Paragraph i.79 of the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) emphasises that roofs on single extensions should reflect the roof pitch of the original house to maintain the character of the street. However, the extension would be to the south elevation of the property and would have limited visibility from the street scene. Moreover, the pitch of the roof, whilst shallower than the main roof, would not appear as a dominant feature within the street scene due to its orientation, and the setback section would aid the proposal in avoiding an unnecessary level of bulk being introduced. The low level of the roof would ensure the extension would remain a subservient addition to the host property. The proposed roof would assimilate more positively with the form of the dwelling house in contrast to the existing roof form of the conservatory which adjoins the existing side element.

Paragraph i.81 of the SPD sets out that windows visible from the road should match the original house in terms of proportion and position. The plans before me demonstrate that the windows and rooflights proposed to the extension reflect the general layout and proportions of the windows of the host dwelling.

[name].3.2 of the SPD sets out that side extensions must remain secondary in scale in relation to the existing dwelling. Whilst the proposed extension would respond to this guidance regarding its height, the width would, however, exceed over 80% of the width of the main host building. The SPD states that extensions should typically be no more than 50% of the width of the original house. The unique layout of the proposed extension and its positioning on the south elevation would restrict its visibility when viewed from the street scene and provide site specific circumstances which allow for a more relaxed application of the guidance. A similar footprint already exists on site due to the presence of the conservatory adjoining the existing single storey side element. As such, there would only be a limited increase in width in terms of what is currently on site.

The proposal demonstrates that the extension would be constructed from materials to match the existing, resulting in an addition that would assimilate more positively with the host property in comparison to the existing conservatory structure. This would serve to limit its visual impact. Moreover, the addition of the extension would maintain an access walkway, albeit slightly less than 1.2m in width from the property boundary recommended in the SPD, resulting in an acceptable set in from the dividing boundary. Whilst the proposed extension may be larger than typical extensions in the surrounding area, it would remain subservient to and in keeping with the host dwelling and would not be over dominant in the street scene.

Although the proposal would be not strictly comply with all parts of the SPD, the SPD is guidance rather than policy. Whilst it is a material consideration, in this instance, I am satisfied that given the site specific circumstances, the appeal scheme would be broadly consistent with the SPD’s overarching aim of creating places that are well designed and fit for purpose.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1 and DHa of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) which, amongst other matters, require developments to respond to the existing character of a place, and be of a scale and design appropriate to the building and the locality.

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. In order to protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling, I am attaching a condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building.

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

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