Appeal 6005301

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the box heading above is a shortened version of the entry on the Planning Application Form. The full description is “Rear and side ground floor extension to existing end of terrace house to provide a new utility room, an open plan kitchen/lounge area, and creating a downstairs shower room and snug area. Externally the proposal will provide new landscaping to the front and rear of the property. The proposed extension is in line with the adjacent neighbour’s extension in depth and height at the eaves at the boundary. This extension is designed to allow for a more comfortable single family experience by opening the kitchen/lounge area to the garden, allowing for cooking and eating to be done in one space improving the living experience of the owners. In addition to the extension, the proposal includes new external insulation backed render in an off white colour with the purpose to increase the thermal efficiency of the property, as well as an air source heat pump (ASHP).”

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed wraparound extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

[address] is in Catford and is comprised of a number of rows of terraced houses, some arranged around a wide hammerhead area. No.20 is an end-of-terrace house with its front elevation facing east and a rear garden and triangular-shaped side garden to its south. Dwellings 20 to [address]. Dwellings 14 to [address] of terraced houses to the south east of the appeal site with no.19 forming the western end house and being located closest to the appeal site. There is a public footpath through to Ravensbourne Park Crescent (situated to the west) which runs between 19 and [site address] .

The proposed development comprises the construction of a single storey extension to the side and rear and level paving to the rear garden, together with the provision of a car parking space and hardstanding, new access ramp, steps and entrance level, and landscaping to the front of the house.

The extension would have two main elements (forming a wraparound shape), with one extending beyond the rear elevation and featuring a mono pitched roof, with a depth of about 2.8m and a maximum height of about 3.1m and a height of about 2.8m at the eaves. The side element of the extension would run along the side elevation of the host property and extend a further 3.6m or so beyond it. It would follow the diagonal line of the property’s southern boundary and would have a mono-pitched roof with a maximum height of about 4m and an eaves height of about 3m.

Both elements of the extension would have green roofs. The extension would be constructed using a combination of backed render, timber cladding and a brick façade with aluminium framed windows, bifold and sliding doors.

An off road parking space would be formed in the front garden using permeable paving and the erection of a glass balustrade. The front garden would also feature a new ramped access route using large format paving as well as the incorporation of native planting. The rear garden would be level paved and further planting would be incorporated.

Whilst the proposed wrapround extension seeks to make effective use of land and also incorporate an interesting design, the scale, height and bulk of the extension would visually dominate the host dwelling and would overwhelm the form and essence of the host dwelling. The height of the side extension would be particularly dominant. The Alterations and [name] advises that single storey extensions should remain clearly subordinate to the host property so they do not visually dominate the original footprint and in most cases the width should be limited to no more than half the width of the property’s original frontage. It further states that where a pitched roof is proposed the ridge height should be visibly lower than the sill of any first floor window by a minimum of 2 or 3 brick courses.

The proposed wraparound extension would more than double the ground floor footprint of the host property resulting in a substantial increase that would visually dominate the original building form. The ridge of the side element would not be set down at all from the first floor side elevation window and its height at about 4m would partially obscure a first-floor rear elevation window when viewed from the south west. The potential use of permitted development rights to extend the host dwelling has been highlighted and I have had regard to the Appellant’s illustrative comparison between the appeal proposal and permitted development. However, I consider that the appeal proposal would result in unacceptable additional harm over and above a lawful fallback development.

Turning from the impacts on the host property to impacts on the wider streetscape, there would be a stark change to views from the public footpath which runs between nos 19 and no 20, however, that would not be a change that I would consider unduly harmful in this urban setting. The wraparound extension would not be unduly prominent in the wider streetscene from the majority of [address] itself, given the extension’s recessive siting.

I consider that the extension would not unduly harm the character or appearance of the streetscene, but it would seriously harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The latter harm is sufficient to dismiss the appeal, having considered all other benefits articulated by the Appellant such as better energy efficiency.

I conclude that the proposed wraparound extension would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (adopted 2025) and the Council's Alterations and [name] (2019).

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. [name].C.