Appeal 6007276

The appeal is dismissed.

Concern has been expressed that the proposal falls outside the scope of a Section 73 application. Having regard to the differences between the approved and proposed extensions and the fact that the description for the development would not change, I agree with the council that the proposal falls within the limits of Section73.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair of dwellings and the wider surrounding area.

The appeal site is located in an area that is characterised by spaciously sited and symmetrically designed pairs of semi-detached family houses, from a limited range of designs and palette of materials. This together with the wide streets, grass verges, street trees and generous sized plots and associated soft landscaping contributes to the spacious and uniform suburban character and appearance of the area.

Some of the dwellings have two storey side extensions, although they retain the hipped roof form of the host buildings, which has helped them blend into the street scene. This includes 76 and 78 [name] which are referred to by the appellant. Currently there are few hip to gable extensions along [name] and [address] and other than the adjoining dwelling at 41 [name] (No.41), I did not notice any in the immediate area with two storey side extensions.

The appeal property occupies a prominent position within the street scene, close to the open junction area of [name] and [address]. It is also located at the end of a row of dwellings around the junction and alongside the deep rear garden to [address] (No.15). As such the pair of dwellings are particularly prominent in views along this stretch of [name] and from the junction.

The appeal dwelling comprises one of a pair of uniformly designed semi-detached family houses with matching two storey central bay windows and which originally had fully hipped roofs. The adjoining dwelling (No.41) has had a hip to gable extension and a two storey side extension which is set back from the front elevation. This extension is comparable in width to the first floor wall between the side of the dwelling and the projecting bay windows. The dwelling also has a single storey flat roofed side/front extension that projects close to and is the same depth as the front bay window. It is approximately half the width of the host dwelling, although wider than the front bay window. Whilst these extensions have detracted from the symmetry of the pair of dwellings, other than the side gables, the two extensions appear subservient to the original dwelling and the pair of dwellings.

In 2025 planning permission was refused and the associated appeal was dismissed for hip to gable, two storey side and single storey flat roofed extensions to the appeal dwelling. The concerns raised related to the width of the side extension and the width and depth of the single storey extension. Subsequently planning permission has been granted for extensions which mirror the side and front extensions at No.41. Whilst the approved scheme would introduce further changes to the original dwelling and pair of dwellings, it would restore the symmetry of the pair of dwellings. Given the importance of symmetry within the street scene and the location of the pair of dwellings at the end of a row, the resultant pair of dwellings would blend into the street scene.

Collectively and amongst other things policy D3 of The London Plan; Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] 2014 (RGLP), and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), promote a design-led approach in optimising the development potential of sites. All developments should respond to the existing character; be of high quality design; and should enhance local context. Residential extensions should be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and the locality.

The Royal Borough Greenwich Urban [name] (SPD) is consistent with this. Section i) advises that extensions that dominate the existing building in height, bulk or area are not supported. Side extensions should be of the highest quality and respond appropriately to the host building and the streetscape. The rhythm of rows of semi-detached houses contributes to the character of the street scape. Side extensions should be designed to avoid the loss of open character between properties. Two storey rear extensions should not overwhelm the existing building and are not normally supported where the existing building has two storeys or less. Front extensions should not alter the overall appearance of the house or dominate the character of the street scene.

The proposed two storey extension would not be more than half the width of the original dwelling. However, the proposed two storey side extension would be 0.7 metres wider than the side extension at No.41. The proposed two storey side extension would also be materially wider than the existing area of front wall between the existing side elevation and the front dormer of the host dwelling. The hip-to-gable element of the proposal would further add to the overall mass of the resultant dwelling. As a result the proposed two storey side extension would appear unduly large and would fail to respect the proportions of the host dwelling and the pair of dwellings.

The proposed single storey side/front extension would be modest in form and character. Despite this, it would materially add to the scale of the proposed two storey side extension. Similarly, due to its height and depth the proposed rear two storey extension would add to the bulk and prominence of the proposed two storey side extension when viewed from the street scene.

Within the rear garden environment, the proposed two storey rear extension would appear unduly large and unsympathetic due to its combined height, width and depth. Together with the proposed single storey extension it would totally dominate the rear of the host dwelling. It would materially add to the sense of enclosure within the immediate rear garden that results from the tapered plots of the adjacent properties that are sited around the junction of [name] and [address]. Conversely, due to its modest height the proposed single storey rear extension on its own would respect the pair of dwellings and blend into the rear garden environment.

As a consequence, notwithstanding the slight set back of the first floor of the proposed side extension, the proposed extensions would appear prominent and would dominate the host dwelling. Unlike the approved scheme they would not restore the symmetry of the pair of dwellings. The proposal also fails to satisfactorily address the previous Inspector’s concerns.

I note that the proposed gap between the flank wall of the resultant dwelling and the side boundary of the appeal property would comply with the guidance in the SPD. However, due to the distance between the gable end of the resultant dwelling and the adjacent trees/shrubs within the rear garden of No.21, the resultant relationship would appear unduly cramped. It would fail to respect the spacious characteristics of the immediate area. Conversely, although the existing lean-to garage projects close to the side boundary, there are clear views over it into the spacious rear garden environment.

The above harm would clearly outweigh the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the proposed additional accommodation. It is not a matter that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

Reference has been made to a wrap around extension in Horn Park Lane that was allowed at appeal in 2023. That extension related to a detached house and the scheme was not directly comparable to the current appeal scheme in terms of size and design. Rather than set a precedent it serves to highlight the need for each proposal to be assessed on its individual merits and in accordance with the prevailing planning policies and associated guidance.

I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair of dwellings and the wider surrounding area. It would conflict with [name] DH1 & DH(a), policy D3 of the London Plan, paragraph 135 of the Framework and the SPD.

Concern has been expressed that the proposal is to facilitate the provision of a house in [name] (HMO). However, the appeal proposal is for the extension of a single dwellinghouse and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Having regard to the conclusion on the main issue and having regard to all other issues raised, the appeal is dismissed.