Appeal 6004297

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey wrap around extension along with front porch and removal of garage door and temporary covering on the side at [site address] , Etham, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3592/HD, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

This permission relates to the development as shown on drawing nos: 04A; 05A and 06A.

I saw that the works detailed on the submitted drawings were largely complete.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

The appeal dwelling is one half of a semi-detached pair located on a road with a predominance of semi-detached pairs under a hipped roof. Notwithstanding this, the wide variety of external materials and a number of different front and side extensions with differing roof forms means that the road lacks uniformity.

The appeal development incorporates a mono-pitch roof across the front elevation, connecting to a single storey flat roof extension which extends along the side and rear of the property.

I saw that a number of properties had single storey mono-pitch additions extending across the front elevation incorporating a porch and the bay window. In this respect, the proposal would not be out of character with others in the street.

Policy DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name], adopted July 2014 (CS) states that flat roofs will not be accepted where they would be visible from the highway. However, the extension to the side incorporates the previous flat roof garage and therefore the impact from the street is largely unchanged. The use of flat roofs for extensions is also recommended in the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted October 2023 (SPD) to reduce the overall bulk and impact of an extension.

The extension to the rear complies with the guidance set out in the SPD in terms of its depth and relationship to the first-floor window. This limits the extent to which it is visible from the street.

Whilst together, these amount to a sizable extension to the property, the original character and appearance of the property is not compromised. The overall size, scale and design of the extensions amount to a subservient addition, respecting the scale and character of the host dwelling.

I saw that other properties had been extended in a similar way, most notably no’s 25, 29 and [address]. Whilst there appears to be no recent planning history for these extensions, they are nonetheless part of the overall street scene and in this respect, the appeal proposal does not appear at odds with that.

Therefore, I find no conflict with Policy D3 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the CS which require a design-led approach where development, including residential extensions, responds to and respects the layout and character of the adjacent townscape.

As the work has already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach the standard time condition or a condition securing matching materials. However, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.