Appeal 6006572

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a porch, a side extension, a part-rear extension following demolition of existing lean-to extension at [site address] , Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3995/HD, subject to the following conditions:

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 drawings labelled “Location Plan” ([name]-01), “Plans, Section & [name]” ([name]-01) and “[name] & Proposed” ([name]-02).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing labelled “Plans, Section & [name]” ([name]-01).

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property lies within a predominantly residential area with varied building forms and designs. The surrounding properties generally benefit from generous front and rear gardens, which contribute positively to the open and spacious character of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwellinghouse located between a detached property with a more forward building line ([address]) and a semi-detached property positioned at an angle due to the bend in the road ([address]).

The appeal property benefits from a large front garden with soft landscaping and a driveway. Its front elevation appears as a transition between the building lines of No 9 and No 15. The rear elevation is similarly positioned and reads as a transition between No 9 and No 15 at the rear.

The proposed rear extension would project from the existing rear extension by approximately 5m. While this would exceed the depth of 3.6m typically considered appropriate by the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (the SPD), the SPD also allows for greater projections in certain circumstances where neighbourly amenity would not be compromised.

No 15 is positioned further from the road than the appeal property and sits at an angle. The proposed rear extension would not extend beyond the rear elevation of No 15, and would be sited about 3.4m from the shared boundary with No 9. In these circumstances, consistent with the Council’s assessment, the proposal would not compromise neighbourly amenity. The rear building-line profile of these properties would also be retained, due to the proposal’s set-back from No 9 and because it would not extend beyond the rear building line of No 15.

The pitched roof to the rear-extension element would have an overall height of about 3.8m metres and an eaves height of approximately 2.7m. The SPD indicates that a flat roof is generally preferred for single-storey rear extensions to reduce bulk, and that the roofline should typically sit 300mm below the first-floor window sill. However, it also recognises that alternative roof forms may be acceptable where they respond to site-specific circumstances and/or local character.

In this case, the pitched-roof form and triangular window design would complement the existing roof form of the host building. The roof pitch and eaves would sit below the first-floor windows. In addition, given the set-back from the shared boundary with No 9, the pitched roof would not run the full length of the rear elevation. As a result, it would not appear excessively tall or bulky when viewed from the rear gardens of the appeal property and neighbouring properties.

Taking these matters together, and given the use of compatible materials and finishes, the scale, bulk and detailing of the rear extension would not overwhelm the rear elevation of the host building or detract from its existing character.

The proposed single-storey side-extension element would replace the existing lean-to the right of the front elevation. The lack of a set-back from the front elevation would be acceptable, as it would generally align with the frontage of the existing lean-to.

The proposed side extension would incorporate a pitched roof generally aligning with the sill height of the first-floor windows and would therefore be taller than the existing lean-to structure. Nonetheless, the maximum roof height would remain comfortably below the ridge and roof slope of the host building, which would be line with the SPD’s guidelines regarding side extensions. The pitched roof would also appear part-hipped from the front, responding positively to the hipped roof of the host building.

In that context, and given the overall height and scale of the side extension, together with appropriate façade treatment using compatible materials and finishes, the extension would not dominate the side or front elevations of the host building and would remain subservient to it. It would therefore generally accord with the design principles of the SPD and would not result in unacceptable harm to the street scene.

The side and rear extensions would connect to form a wrap-around extension, which could give rise to cumulative effects. However, as outlined above, the rear and side elements would each be acceptable in isolation in terms of their effects on the host building and the street scene. Within the context of the generous gardens to the appeal property and neighbouring properties, the scale and bulk of the proposed single-storey additions would not appear excessive. Moreover, given the layout of the plot and the development pattern in this part of the street, the side and rear elevations would be largely screened from public viewpoints. As such, the spacious character along the frontages of this section of the street would remain largely unaffected by the proposal.

The proposed porch would have a pitched roof set approximately 100mm below the first-floor window sill above. Given its modest scale, the generous front garden, and the matching roof form, the limited spacing to the window sill would not result in a porch of such size or prominence that it would dominate the front facade of the host building or the front garden. It would therefore generally meet the objectives of the SPD in relation to front extensions.

The side and rear extension at No 15 has been referred to by both parties, and its lawfulness is contested. Limited weight is given to that development, not because of its disputed lawfulness, but because its form and scale arise from different site circumstances, including its angled relationship to the highway and the fact that it is a semi-detached property. Notwithstanding there is no identical development locally, the surrounding area includes extensions of various forms and sizes with no uniform built form and design. As a result, for the reasons set out above, the proposal, taken as a whole, would not appear out of character in the surrounding area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014). These policies, in summary, seek high-quality design that respects local character and which is appropriate in scale and appearance to existing buildings.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.

Conditions specifying the time for commencement and requiring compliance with the approved plans are necessary for reasons of certainty.

A further condition requiring the external materials to accord with those shown on the approved plans is also necessary to ensure that the proposed development integrates satisfactorily with the host building and its surroundings.

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