Appeal 6008976

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension with associated external alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/4046/HD, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the following approved plans: Y2690/2025 - A01, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15 and A16.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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

The proposal would result in a side extension, at first floor level, above a ground floor side extension that has already been approved by the council. The first floor element is described as being set back 4.8 metres from the frontage with the hipped roof ridge being 0.5 metres lower than the main ridge line. The works have commenced on site but were not complete.

The area has traditional detached dwellings on the east side of the road, with good sized front gardens, on land rising southwards. The generally uniform form and spacing of these houses result in a distinctive residential character. The planning history of the site has been provided; and a recent dismissed appeal decision for a similar proposal is particularly relevant, reference APP/E5330/D/24/3355289.

The Inspector found that the proposed first floor side extension would overly close the gap at the upper level, detracting from the positive characteristics of the locality and these types of houses in particular. It was also found that it would result in a Appeal Decision: 6008976 terracing effect, particularly as the eaves would be higher than those of the neighbouring house. The overall conclusion was that the sense of spaciousness and rhythm of houses within this road would be lost.

Extracts of the dismissed appeal proposal have been provided. The council advise that the width of the property at first floor level would be 0.3 metres wider than was previously considered during the dismissed appeal. The appellant suggests that the eaves would be lower than the neighbouring property, but I am not satisfied that this would be the case given the changes in levels. What is evident is that the first floor element was shown to be only marginally set back from the frontage by an amount very significantly less than the set back now proposed. The scale of the set back and the proximity of these houses to each other would ensure that the new first floor element would only be visible when immediately outside this property and its neighbour, as it would be largely screened from view by the existing frontages when approaching in either direction.

Given the set back, the eaves of the extension would not be viewed as forming a continuation of the frontage and this, together with the retained gap of almost two metres, would ensure that the proposal would not result in a terracing effect.

Although the form and design have evolved over a number of failed applications, the details now submitted represent a design solution that would ensure that the first floor extension would have only a marginal impact on the wider character and appearance of the area. The considerable recess would ensure that it would be of very limited prominence and the retention of a gap of nearly two metres, although narrower than the gap between the two frontages at first floor level, would ensure that it would not appear cramped within the plot. As the neighbouring property is already built up to the boundary there would be little prospect of the gap being eroded further.

The revisions to the dismissed proposal would overcome the concerns previously raised. It would represent a good standard of design that would appropriately balance the desire for additional accommodation with the need to maintain the important characteristics of the area.

There would be no conflict with policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) as it would respond to local distinctiveness and be of a high quality in terms of design, detailing and proportions. It would also satisfy the design expectations of policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014), particularly as it would be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality; and although not a semi-detached property, it would avoid a 'terracing effect'. By avoiding a terracing effect and the loss of the open character between properties, it satisfies principle I.2.2 and paragraph i.78 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023). It would also accord with the design expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In conclusion, the proposal would represent good design given this particular context. As there are no other matters that weigh significantly against the proposal, I allow the appeal.

As the works are underway, I have not imposed a commencement condition. I have imposed a condition relating to the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The application form sets out that the materials Appeal Decision: 6008976 would match, and a condition would require this to ensure that the development would have a satisfactory appearance.