Appeal 6002600

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/2F2514/2FHD, subject to the following

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 drawing nos. 776-001 Rev. P1, 776-200 Rev. P3, 776-201 Rev. P1, 776-202 Rev. P1, 776-210 Rev. P1, 776-221 Rev. P1, 776-220 Rev. P1, and 776-300 Rev. P1, including the materials specified thereon.

No development above ground level shall take place until a full specification of the proposed replacement tree planting (to replace T001 and T002) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting. The tree planting shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved specification.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the BS 5837 [name], Impact Assessment, dated 24 July 2025.

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 Council and neighbour have identified a discrepancy in the position of the site boundary as shown on the existing and proposed plans, raising whether the ownership certificate submitted by the appellant was correct. From the evidence before me and my observations on site it appears that the boundary on the ground resembles the proposed plan and location plan. The proposed development therefore appears to be within the red line defined on the location plan, to which the ownership certificate relates. Should the appellant’s plans prove to be inaccurate, any boundary issue would be a matter for the appellant to resolve with the neighbouring landowner and may also require a revised application for planning permission if the extension could not be built as proposed. However, based on the evidence before me I can continue to consider the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locally listed building and Westcombe Park Conservation Area (Conservation Area).

The Westcombe Park Conservation Area [name] (March 2010) (the appraisal) notes that the significance of the Conservation Area is partly derived from the rich array of 18th, 19th and early 20th century dwellinghouses which are of architectural quality displaying consistency in terms of their materials, style, and detailing. Respectively, these include yellow and red London stock brick, bay windows, porches, and ornate detailing. The urban layout is generally characterised by strong building lines and consistent setbacks, which are sited along often long and wide tree lined streets. The gardens of dwellings are generally generous. In part, it is the rich architectural design of dwellinghouses and the survival of plot patterns that contribute to the architectural significance and spatial character of the conservation area.

The appeal dwelling is a four-storey semi-detached Victorian dwelling, which forms part of a group of four uniform dwellings across two sets of pairs. Its front elevation is of architectural interest, including a front gable wall with ornate fascia to which a two-storey bay is attached with ornate stone detailing, a front dormer and porch. Notwithstanding the roof of the porch, its materials appear to be as those as originally designed including London yellow brick, slate, stone, and wrought iron. The dwelling is set within a plot with a generous rear garden. Whilst the dwelling itself is of high architectural significance, another major factor in terms of its contribution to the Conservation Area is its uniformity within its group from the street scene of [address]. Therefore, both the dwelling and the group it forms part of contribute positively to the significance of the Conservation Area.

At the rear, the appeal dwelling and its partner both have modest, single storey rear extensions of different scale and design. Whilst these have disrupted the established uniformity and symmetry of the rear elevations to some degree, the original proportions of the dwellings remain legible and observable.

The appeal dwelling is locally listed, described by the Council as “[one of a] pair of 3-storey houses in yellow stock brick, built circa 1882, with slated roofs, projecting bays, and decorated barge boards. Form a group with Nos. 130-136, [address]”. Although not within the description, the fenestration treatment of the group is also consistent. As such, it can be understood that the appeal dwelling’s significance arises from its architectural quality in terms of its materials, detailing, and uniformity of these within its group.

Although the proposed development would be large, its total footprint would be markedly less than the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, it would be single‐storey and due to the existing levels on site, would be visibly set down from the existing internal ground floor level. As a result, the massing and siting of the proposal means it would appear as a secondary addition to the host dwelling. Although there would be some reduction in symmetry on the rear elevation of the host dwelling and its attached neighbour, this is already present in the existing extensions and would not therefore be harmful in itself. The proposal would maintain the ability to clearly read the original layout and massing of the host dwelling and its articulated rear elevation. In particular, the rear bay, a key feature of these dwellings, would remain unchanged. Therefore, its contribution to the uniformity of its group, and significance of the wider Conservation Area would be preserved.

The maximum depth of the proposed extension would exceed the guidance set out in the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD), however the SPD allows for greater depths in certain circumstances. This depth relates only to the narrow infill section between the side elevation of the outrigger and the shared boundary. The extension would only project around half this depth from the rear elevation of the outrigger, meaning it would read not as a single, uninterrupted mass but instead as a wraparound extension. The deeper section would not be visible other than from the immediate vicinity, and the gabled form of the roof would reflect that of the main dwelling. Consequently, the wraparound nature of the extension would not inherently be harmful. Therefore, the scale of the proposed development when taken as a whole would be secondary to the host dwelling and would respond appropriately to the scale of the existing building and the size of the garden.

The SPD sets out that sometimes a contemporary design approach that contrasts but does not detract from the existing building is appropriate and that materials should either be sympathetic or complementary to the host building. The development would not result in the loss of any architectural feature which contributes to the significance of the host building or the CA. In this case the simple form, proportions, contemporary design and use of materials across the extension would be complementary to the host building.

The proposed window/doors would be powder-coated aluminium framed and would not match the proportions or alignment of the existing timber sash windows on the appeal dwelling. However, the use of such a contrasting material and design would contribute to a clear visual distinction between the host dwelling and the proposed development. This approach is consistent with the SPD. The contrast of the proposed fenestration would allow for the appreciation of the existing sash windows without competing with them. Therefore, it would not diminish or detract from their unifying contribution amongst the group of dwellings and their contribution to the wider Conservation Area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the locally listed building and the Conservation Area. Therefore, it would accord with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021); Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a), DH(h) and DH(j) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] ([name]) (2014). Amongst other things, these policies aim to ensure that development is of high quality design, preserves or enhances conservation areas, protect locally listed buildings and the particular characteristics that account for their designation and that that residential extensions are of a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality. I further find consistency with the SPD and character appraisal.

Whilst the scheme may have departed from advice given by the Council at pre-application advice stage, the function of this appeal is to consider the proposed development before me. Therefore, this issue does not alter my recommendation.

Representations have been made relating to the proposed development by various third parties. The testing of soil and its subsequent verification, whether within the [name] or not, has no bearing on the planning merits of this appeal. Concerns relating to the structural implications of the proposal are issues are covered by the building regulations. Therefore, these issues sit outside of the scope of this appeal.

Whilst the proposed development is likely to result in additional noise and additional vehicular traffic throughout its construction the scope of development means any arising impacts would be temporary and limited in nature. I appreciate that this would result in disturbance to neighbours during construction and that this might affect their work for that period. However, given the small scale of the proposal conditions to manage construction processes are not necessary, and any nuisance is a matter covered by separate legislation. If the construction process resulted in depositing of soil on the highway this would be a matter for the highway authority to enforce to ensure no harm to highway safety. Consequently, whilst I have regard to the issues raised, they do not alter my recommendation.

A third party has raised concerns that, depending on the roof pitch, the proposal could result in a loss of light to their ground floor kitchen and bathroom. Having regard to the surrounding context, it is considered that the neighbouring property most likely to experience any such impact would be No. [address], which lies immediately to the north and shares the closest relationship with the application site. In this regard, I concur with the Council’s assessment that the proposed eaves height of approximately 2.5 metres along the shared boundary, together with the roof pitch shown on the submitted drawings, would not give rise to a development of sufficient height, scale, or massing to result in any unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight to this neighbouring property. Therefore, there would be no conflict with Core Strategy Policy DH(a) in this respect.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I recommend a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty.

To ensure the protection of retained trees, a condition is required to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted [name].

Policy G7 of the London Plan is referred to in the Council’s report and I have obtained a copy of it. It requires that where tree removal is necessary, appropriate replacement planting should be secured, having regard to the value and benefits of the trees lost. Given that T001 and T002 are both identified as [name] trees, replacement planting of equivalent value would satisfy the requirements of this policy and can be secured by condition. Taking this into account, and having regard to the Council’s assessment, it is concluded that the removal of these trees, subject to suitable replacement planting, would safeguard the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and comply with London Plan Policy G7 and Core Strategy Policy DH(h) in this respect.

It is not necessary to impose a condition obscuring the roof lights facing the neighbouring property, as the Council suggests. They would be angled upwards and would not result in any direct views into the windows of the neighbouring property or vice versa. Therefore, there would not be an unacceptable impact to the living conditions of its occupants or the occupants of the host dwelling by way of overlooking or loss of privacy.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.