Appeal 6000570

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025 the Government published a consultation 'Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system', together with an accompanying [name] (WMS). The proposed reforms are draft and therefore may be subject to change. The consultation is ongoing, and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not constitute Government policy. Overall, insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, there is little change to the thrust and direction of the Framework, and I have therefore treated the consultation draft with limited weight and made my decision with regard to the current Framework.

The Council raises no concern over the proposed rear conservatory and based on my observations at the site visit, I have no reason to take a different view. The main issue in dispute is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

Number [site address] is located within a predominantly residential area characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties. The dwellings are typically set back from the highway behind spacious front gardens, many of which have been converted to provide off street parking. The locality demonstrates a coherent pattern of development, through similar building lines, scale, and height. The presence of substantial green verges, together with generous spacing between semi-detached and terraced groups of dwellings, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property forms the end position in a short terrace of three dwellings, prominently located along the curved alignment of the junction at [address] and [address]. At my site visit, views were clearly apparent of the front elevations of the properties on my approach into [address] from [address].

The dwelling has previously been extended through a two-storey side addition and a single storey garage extension, both continuous with the front elevation of the house. The proposal seeks to extend the property further with a two-storey addition that would project the hipped roof end of the property, flush with the front elevation. A further two-storey element is also proposed, set down from the main roof ridge line and set back from the principal elevation. The combined width of the existing and proposed side extensions would be nearly as wide as the original dwelling and would appear contrived and unbalanced in relation to the host property. I therefore find the scale and design of the side extension would not present a sympathetic addition to the property.

Furthermore, the two-storey extension would be positioned in close proximity to the adjoining dwelling, [address]. As a result, the spacing between the dwellings would be significantly diminished. The provision of around 0.9m between the flank two-storey side elevation of the proposal and the shared boundary would appear oppressive and visually jarring within the street scene, causing harm to the open and spacious character of the area. Due to its excessive width and design, the proposed extension would appear incongruous to the host dwelling. It would also conflict with the established symmetry of the terrace, thereby detracting from its overall setting.

Whilst the evidence provided refers to a previous approval at the site for a two-storey extension1, I have not been supplied with full details of that scheme. In any event, the Council has commented that the earlier approval maintained a greater separation distance between the two properties than in the scheme before me, and I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest otherwise.

The appellant draws my attention to a number of examples in the wider area. In relation to the first, [address], a two- storey side extension is stated to have been approved and to accurately mirror the proposal. In relation to the second, at [address], a new dwelling is stated to have been approved on a plot of the same size. [name] have not been provided with full details of these schemes, I note that both addresses are sited a significant distance from the appeal property and do not have the same site context. Furthermore, the proposal at No 253 is not a recent decision. Accordingly, these examples are of limited weight in my decision.

Both parties highlight an approved extension opposite the site at [address], which has been constructed. [name] note the similarities in scale and form between the development and the appeal proposal, I also find that a greater separation distance is maintained between No 4 and its neighbouring property than in the appeal before me. Furthermore, I observed that this example similarly detracts from the character and appearance of the area, and therefore it does not weigh in favour of the appeal.

I find that the development would be clearly visible from a range of viewpoints along [address] and [address]. The substantial scale and 1 Application reference 22/2015/F incongruous design would appear out of place within this setting, harming the character and appearance of the host property, the symmetry with the adjoining terrace and the wider area, where I find the magnitude of harm would be significant in this context.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in unjustified harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) where development should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

Additionally, I find conflict with Policy H(c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan, [name] with [name] (2014) (GLP), which requires back land and infill development to maintain the character of the area with particular regard to the scale, design and density of the development. Furthermore, I find conflict with Policy DHI of the GLP which requires all development to be of a high quality of design and positively contribute to the improvement of the built environment by taking account of the scale, height, bulk and massing of the adjacent townscape in addition to the established layout and special character.

I do not find conflict with Policy H(a) of the GLP which relates to the protection of existing housing as the proposal would not result in a loss of residential development. Furthermore, Policy DH(a) of the GLP, which relates to the design of two-storey residential extensions, is not determinative to this appeal, where the host property forms part of an existing terrace, rather than a semi-detached dwelling as set out in the policy.

In reaching my determination, I have had regard to the representation made by an interested party, including concerns relating to loss of privacy and to loss of daylight and sunlight to their home and garden. However, I find that the massing of the proposed two-storey extension, together with the proposed arrangement of fenestration, would not result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers through loss of privacy, outlook or daylight and sunlight. Furthermore, I find no harm with matters of noise, dust and disturbance during construction given the modest scale of the proposal and the temporary nature of the construction works.

The Council advises that their residential land supply indicates that the authority is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a supply figure of 2.38 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework indicates that in such situations, where the requisite land supply does not exist, permission should be granted 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.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards addressing the housing shortfall and it would do so on a brownfield site within the urban area and in a location which has good access to services and facilities, including public transport. Against these benefits, and the temporary economic benefits arising during construction, I must weigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area. I find the magnitude of harm would be significant in this context. The adverse impact identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit of one new dwelling.

Consequently, the adverse impact of the proposal’s design and scale on the character of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefit of one new dwelling when assessed against the policies in the Framework and this would bring the scheme into conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. There are no material considerations of such strength as to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

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