Appeal 6001289

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear and side wrap around extension at [site address] , Eltham, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2067/HD, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing [name]/25009 – 1 and EFP/25009 – 2.

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 the surrounding area.

The appeal dwelling is a previously extended two storey semi-detached property set in a generous plot. Despite the general harmony of the appeal property and other two storey semi-detached dwellings within the cul-de-sac, they are not uniform in appearance owing to a range of extensions of different heights, footprints and roof types. It is this variety that creates a sense of place and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst the proposed extension would exceed the advised depth cited in the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD), the flat roof profile would ensure the extension would not be bulky. It would not be visually intrusive given that the scale and massing would be proportionate to the appeal property and would readily be accommodated within the spacious context of the appeal site. The extension would be read as subservient and secondary to the original dwelling because of the single storey form and would sit comfortably in the plot due to the expansive garden. It would therefore respond appropriately to the scale of the existing building and the size of the garden, in line with the SPD guidance. Furthermore, when viewed from the surrounding rear gardens the proposed extension would be seen within the context of the prevailing varied character and appearance and would assimilate well within its setting.

The proposal’s ‘wrap around’ element would result in a modest side extension that would be visible from the street. In these views, even though the flat roof design would not reflect the roof form of the main dwelling, given the presence of other flat roofs in the locality, such as some of the surrounding garages, the proposal would not be conspicuous. The single storey height of the proposal would retain views between houses, which, in any event, varies within the cul-de-sac due to the range of extensions and alterations.

To conclude, the proposed extension would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), which, amongst other things, require development to be of a high-quality design and contribute positively to the built environment.

Due to the separation distances, orientation and overall relationship between the appeal dwelling and neighbouring properties there would be no significant consequences to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions with regard to outlook, daylight/sunlight or privacy. Even though the submitted drawings do not show the topography of the site there is no substantive evidence that they are inaccurate.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary in the interest of certainty.

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.