Appeal 6000616

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development described as “change enlarged existing garage into dwelling space” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1872/HD, subject to the following conditions:

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 approved plans, drawing references: D02; D04; D06; D07; D08 and D09.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building.

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 host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appeal site is in a residential area, located on a corner plot where [address] and [address] meet. It benefits from a side garden, with the appeal building forming one half of a pair of uniform semi-detached dwellings. Both properties feature attached flat roofed, single storey side garages. This symmetry, together with the traditional and simple design of the pair contributes positively to the consistency of the suburban character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would be more than 50% of the width of the original house. It, therefore, would not fully comply with [name].3.2 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD). However, the SPD provides design guidance, and the proposal would be compliant in terms of its use of matching materials and maintenance of an access walkway between the extension and the boundary. Its single storey height and flat roof design would also ensure it appears subservient to the host dwelling.

Although the proposal would result in a wider form, it would continue to be read as a flat roofed, single storey side addition. As such, it would maintain an overall cohesiveness to the semi-detached pair and its attached side garages. The side garden also benefits from a generous width, and the proposal would not appear disproportionate or excessive in relation to the plot size. The proposal would also not appear as an incongruous addition, given that the surrounding area features side projections or attached garages of varying sizes.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. Whilst the proposed flat roof would not comply with Policy DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan 2014 (RGLP), the existing garage already features a flat roof, and the proposal would achieve its overall aim for residential extensions to have an appropriate scale and design. It would not conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, Policy DH1 of the RGLP and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these require development proposals to be of a high quality design.

To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and specify the approved plans. A condition is also necessary for materials to match those used on the existing building to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.