Appeal 6001566

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development on the application form includes the address of the property which is superfluous. Therefore, I have omitted it from the description set out in the banner heading.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and (b) the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with specific regard to privacy and outlook.

Horn Park Lane is a residential street. Although there are newer terraced properties at the end nearest [address], Horn Park Lane primarily comprises detached and semi-detached dwellings. Most dwellings are of a similar width, with a similar gap between each other, which together with the consistent height and scale, creates a uniform and cohesive pattern of development along Horn Park Lane, defining the character and appearance of the area. Where dwellings have been extended to the side, a gap between the extension and the neighbouring dwelling has been retained, which has in turn contributed towards the uniform pattern of development.

The appeal site is a link detached dwelling, which is attached to No 4 through adjoining garages. A gap at first floor level has been retained, reflecting the uniform pattern of development. The proposed side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the main building at first floor level. While this would visually read as a secondary element, the introduction of a first floor side extension would remove the visual gap between No 4 and No 6, harmfully eroding an important feature of the area. The loss of the gap between No 4 and No 6 would result in a large built mass without a visual break. Although the roof would be hipped, the side extension would disrupt the pattern of development by creating a terraced effect.

The proposed side extension would be continued to the rear of the dwelling, resulting in a large wrap-around extension. Although it would be blended into the existing dwelling through the use of matching roof pitches, eaves heights, and materials, the rear extension would be an overly large addition to the dwelling that would overwhelm its modest form. Despite the lowered ridge height, the original form and scale of the host dwelling would be lost. Together, the side extension and first floor rear extension would create an overly large dwelling that would fail to respect the existing pattern of development. The extensions would engulf the modest form of the original dwelling, transforming it to be unrecognisable.

A terrace is also proposed at first floor level, which would be finished with a glass balustrade. Despite its limited views from within the street scene, the terrace would introduce an uncharacteristic element to the rear of the dwelling. The terrace would add domestic paraphernalia and visual clutter on the rear elevation when seen in private views and from the sports ground to the rear, which would be uncharacteristic of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] (2014) (Local Plan), Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), and Policies HD2 and HD3 of the Lee Neighbourhood Plan (2024). Collectively, they seek to achieve a high quality of design which provides a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context, and that proposals for residential extensions are limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality.

There would also be conflict with the guidance contained within the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) insofar as it requires side extensions to remain secondary in scale, while rear extensions are required to respond appropriately to the scale of the existing building.

At first floor level, the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling at No 8 share a consistent building line, with an existing level of overlooking from the first floor rear windows into the rear garden. The proposed first floor extension would project the rear elevation further into the garden than the existing situation, with the terrace projecting even further again. As such, the impact of overlooking from the existing first floor window and the proposed terrace are not comparable.

The glass balustrade, which has a privacy screen to the side nearest the boundary with No 8, would extend onto only part of the flat roof. Despite the taller privacy screen to the side, views into the neighbouring garden would still be possible over and through the rear facing balustrade. Even if it is not the occupant’s intention to view the habitable rooms or garden of No 8, the neighbouring occupants would have a perceived sense of overlooking from the terrace, particularly given that it projects significantly further than the existing first floor rear window. As such, the existing level of mutual overlooking would become unbalanced, leading to an increased sense of being overlooked, harming the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers.

The Council raises concerns with effect of the proposal on the outlook of the occupants of No 8 from the ground floor westernmost northern side window. At ground floor level, the existing extension at No 6 is stepped back nearest the boundary between the appeal site and No 8. No 8 has several windows on the side elevation facing the existing dwelling, and from my site visit I could see that most of them were obscure glazed, including the window referenced by the Council.

The proposal would add depth and height to the appeal dwelling. However, given that the window on the side elevation is obscure glazed, and that they face the existing side elevation of the appeal site, the proposal would not significantly harm the outlook of the occupants from the ground floor side window in question.

Although the proposal would not harm the outlook of the occupants of No 8, it would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 8 in terms of privacy. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy DH(b) of the Local Plan which seeks to only permit developments where it is demonstrated that it does not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers.

The proposal would also be in conflict with the guidance contained within the SPD which requires development proposals to demonstrate that they would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties or gardens.

The appellant has suggested that the Council did not fully consider all of the supporting evidence submitted. Nevertheless, this is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.