Appeal 6001935

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for first floor side extension, part single part two storey rear extension, front porch, replacement windows and all other associated works at [site address] , Eltham, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2208/HD, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set within an area where this form of development is common. However, other forms of housing are also evident including the short terrace alongside the appeal property to the south and the more extensive and lengthier terrace on the opposite side of the road to the north.

The dwelling has been modified before – a wrap-around single storey extension is evident. Apart from a modest protrusion towards the rear garden, the same footprint as the previous modification would be used to accommodate the proposed single and two storey extensions. An enlarged new porch is also envisaged.

I saw that some semi-detached properties in the locality have been extended, some with two storey side extensions. The Council seemingly do not regard these as contextually significant since they are historical or built prior to the Council’s adoption of its SPD1. To my mind however, these extensions cannot simply be ignored since they contribute to forming local character. 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2023

The two storey side extension would prove prominent in the public realm not least because it faces a busy, wide distributor (B263) which itself joins the A20 a short distance to the south. It is therefore important that any addition, particularly a two-storey extension to the side, is acceptably designed. In this regard, the proposal, by reason of its set down at ridge level, set back from the existing front elevation, the use of a hipped side roof, and use of complementary fenestration and materials ensures that the addition would be viewed as subservient to the host property and in design harmony with it.

The proposed porch and other extensions to the side and rear are in my view acceptable in design terms. I note the Council’s concern as to the encroachment of the single storey’s roof line with a window cill above. This part of the scheme however is sited to the rear of the dwelling, largely out of public view. The adjoining football field behind the site is largely unused during the week, and even when in use I doubt if any players’ or spectators’ eyes would be drawn to this small feature of concern to the Council.

I therefore conclude that the proposals would sit acceptably in this visual and spatial context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, the proposals generally conform with the design provisions of Policy D3 of The London Plan and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name]. Taken in combination these policies require that all developments achieve a high quality of design by requiring that proposals for residential extensions, in particular, are limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality.

As suggested by the Council a conflict with part of the SPD’s design guidance arises. However, I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. They do not in this case.

It is necessary that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and a condition to this effect is therefore imposed in the interests of certainty.

A condition in respect of materials is also imposed in the interests of visual amenity.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and other development plan policies. I have also noted the appellant’s references to other appeal decisions, but these attract little weight since I am unfamiliar with the geography of the areas affected by the appeals. Although not decisive in my considerations I note that no member of the public objected to the proposal on being consulted. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading me to my conclusions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]: 00; 01; 10; 11; 20; 30; 100; 110; 111; 120 & 130.

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