Appeal 6003282

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The narrow appeal site comprises single-storey garages and lean-to sheds set between two-storey detached and semi-detached brick with painted render homes with double-storey front bay windows and hipped roofs, common features of the predominantly residential [address].

The proposed development’s aim is to provide a site-specific design solution to this narrow appeal site, which would be in contrast with wider neighbouring properties. However, the design of the proposed three-storeys element would be entirely inconsistent with the surrounding detached and semi-detached two-storey dwellings with both hipped and pitched roofs. The proposed timber effect vertical cladding panels and inset porch area would introduce a change in material, texture and colour and would attempt to break the front façade into vertical components. However, the predominantly expansive front-elevation glazing would bear little resemblance to the surrounding dwellings, where double-storey front bays and vertically separated fenestration are characteristic. It would therefore fail to establish a coherent or legible rhythm to the frontage and would not sufficiently break down the building’s overall mass.

The proposed design would not include any differentiation between the three storeys. The top storey would not be set back, and the introduction of a flat roof on this infill plot would accentuate the building’s unrelieved, monotonous appearance. Whilst the overall ridge height would respect the skyline and stepped approach of neighbouring homes, which gradually increases due to the gradient of [address], the proposed development would not respect the neighbouring urban context of both hipped and pitched roof forms. As a result, the proposed development would exert an incongruous level of visual dominance in this part of the street scene.

The proposed design would provide no meaningful differentiation to the front elevation, which would result in a front façade that would appear overly prominent and incongruous within the street scene. Consequently, it would fail to respect the established character and appearance of the surrounding area—an essential requirement for development on an infill site.

Aside from a single narrow vertical window on a side elevation, the scheme would provide no material or colour variation, nor any projections or recesses, leaving the smooth rendered concrete-panelled gable walls visually flat and overly dominant.

Overall, the proposed development would be a prominent and incongruous addition in the street scene particularly when viewed from along [address].

In light of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies DH1 and H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (adopted July 2014), and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), which collectively state that all development is expected to, amongst other things, achieve a high quality house design, provide a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context taking account of, among other things, the architecture of surrounding buildings; and the scale, height, bulk and massing of the adjacent townscape and delivering buildings that positively respond to the local distinctiveness throughout.

The proposed development would also be contrary to [name].1.3 of the Royal Borough of [name] (2023), which sets out that infill developments should be strongly linked to the character of the place and should support the overall cohesion of the townscape; and take cues from the surrounding built form in terms of, among other things, scale, massing and articulation of the façade.

Concerns have also been raised by interested parties including effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and impact on highways and parking. [name] am dismissing the appeal for the reasons given, these other matters do not need to be explored in detail.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.