Appeal 6006429

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing rear extension and the construction of single storey part front, rear and side wrap around extension at [site address] , Greenwich, Kidbrooke [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3786/HD, subject to the following conditions:

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: BLOCK/SITE PLAN, TQRQM24286144127245, 2503-006 Revision 01, 2503-007 Revision 01, 2503-008 Revision 01, 2503-009 Revision 01, 2503-010 Revision 00, 2503-011 Revision 00, 2503-012 Revision 00, 2503-014 Revision 01.

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 have argued that the submitted plans are inaccurate in terms of scale and form. They state that the drawings of the proposed rear extension have a lower depth, height and width, and the drawings of the proposed front porch have a lower depth, than the relevant measurement annotations on the plans. They also state that new patio paving extending from the proposed rear extension is not detailed on all the relevant plans. Whilst the plans do not appear to be inaccurate as described, even if the drawings on the plans had lower measurements than their respective annotations, this would result in a smaller development which would lessen any effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, I have given this matter limited weight in my considerations.

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

The surrounding area generally consists of two-storey semi-detached houses with tiled roofs and white, cream or brown render elevations. Many houses in the area, including the appeal property, are distinguished by tiled front door canopies of a similar depth to two-storey bay windows which are overhung by shared front-gabled roofs with mock-Tudor detailing. Hip-to-gable extensions, rear dormers, and single-storey and two-storey side extensions of a variety of roof forms are prevalent within the street scene. Cumulatively, this gives the area a varied character and appearance.

The host dwelling forms the right hand half of a semi-detached pair. The adjoining counterpart to the left of the host dwelling, [address], has a single-storey side extension, and a single-storey rear extension that is deeper than the host dwelling’s existing single-storey rear extension. This, combined with other additions at No. 101, makes this pair of semi-detached houses currently appear disproportionate and unbalanced.

The proposal would conflict with elements of the Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD), which recommends that front extensions should not extend forward of bay windows, side extensions should be set back from principal elevations and their roof forms should reflect the host dwelling’s, and rear extensions should not project further than 3.6m from rear elevations. However, the proposal would make the host dwelling appear more complementary with its adjoining counterpart as the depth of the proposed front and rear extensions, and the width of the proposed front and side extensions, would be of a similar scale to No 101’s front, side and rear extensions.

The proposed single-storey front, side and rear extensions would remain subservient to the host dwelling due to their modest height, considerably lower than the first floor windowsill level, and the use of matching materials. The proposed front and side extensions would neither extend more than half the width of the host dwelling, nor significantly forward of the existing front door canopy, appearing as proportionate additions to the host dwelling and preserving the prominence of the host dwelling’s distinctive bay windows.

The false pitch at the front of the proposed side extension would reflect the pitch of the host dwelling’s roof and the existing front door canopy, appearing sympathetic to the host dwelling. The false pitch, together with existing vegetation in the rear garden, substantially screens the proposal’s flat roof from the public realm, reducing the proposal’s prominence within the street scene.

Therefore, whilst the proposal would conflict with elements of the SPD, I find that due to the proposal’s similar scale and design to No 101’s extensions, the use of matching materials, and the limited visibility of the proposed flat roof and rear extension from the street, the proposed extensions would be sympathetic and proportionate to the host dwelling and would be in keeping with the varied character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Consequently, it would comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and [name](a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with [name] (2014). Together these seek to ensure that development is well-integrated with its surroundings, particularly in terms of style, form and materials, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. The proposal would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive and respects local character.

In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, a condition to ensure that the development accords with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. A separate condition specifying materials is not necessary as they are specified on the application, Ref 25/3786/HD.

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 listed above.

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