Appeal 6010327

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear lower ground and ground floor extensions replacing existing at [site address] , Plumstead, Greenwich [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3976/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: 050_P_20_00 Issue P1, 050_P_20_01 Issue P2, 050_P_20_02 Issue P2, 050_P_30_00 Issue P1, 050_P_20_03 Issue P1, 050_P_20_00 Issue P1 and 050_P_30_00 Issue P1

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey house mid terrace with an additional basement/lower ground floor. Its sits in a terrace of similar late 19th/ early 20th century properties that retain much of their original appearance to the front but have undergone additions and alteration to the rear of differing scales and designs. The terrace within which the appeal dwelling sits within a predominantly residential area and is located on the side of a hill and the land falls away to the rear. This results in the appeal dwelling and neighbouring houses appearing to be three full storeys in height from the rear, where the garden falls steeply away.

To the rear of the property is an original 3 storey outrigger and to the rear and full width of that outrigger there is a later glazed framed orangery with a brick base, the steep, mono-pitched glazed roof of which sits immediately below the first floor window in the outrigger. This existing orangery projects rearwards as far as the three storey extension to the rear outrigger of the adjoining terraced house at [address] (No.54).

The proposal is to replace the existing orangery with a frameless and fully glazed orangery that at lower ground level would extend across the full width of the garden of the appeal dwelling, with solid wall structures to either side of the boundary with the adjoining properties in the terrace. This lower ground floor element would wrap around the outrigger, utilising an asymmetrical dual pitched roof form, leaving a small open courtyard space adjacent to the rear wall of the main house. The lower ground floor part of the proposed orangery would extend further rearward into the garden than existing by approximately 1.5 metres, but not so far rearward as the single storey rear lower ground floor extension to the adjoining house at [address] (No.58).

At ground level the proposal would be the same width as the outrigger of the appeal dwelling and would extend rearward to the same extent as the outrigger extension at No.54. The angled roof of the ground floor element would generally match the height of the existing orangery, and at its highest point would align with the sill of the first floor window in the outrigger but, due to the angle of the roof would sit well below this window as it passes underneath. The proposed orangery would be a single internal space, with new connections made into the existing house, including an internal balcony element at ground floor level.

The Royal Borough of [name] Planning Document (2023) (the SPD) sets out that a projection of 3.6 metres for an extension from the rear of the host building would typically be acceptable. However, this is design advice that should be applied within the context of individual circumstances and constraints. The proposal would be to the full width of the rear garden and would project approximately 8.29 metres from the rear wall of the main house, including the 2.1 metres of the proposed courtyard space. The proposed orangery would therefore be substantially larger than existing, introducing greater bulk and volume at lower ground and ground level. However, within the context of the extensions to the rear of both No.’s 54 and 58 the proposal would appear to sit comfortably within the bulk and massing and projection rearward of these neighbouring properties in the terrace.

The SPD advises that roof forms respond to the specific site constraints and the character of the area. The proposed angled roof forms achieve this through mediating between the boxy rear extensions of neighbouring properties, reflecting the pitched roofs of the original house and responding to existing window positions.

The fully glazed and frameless rear façade and angled roof forms of the proposal would result in the proposal having a light appearance and to be carefully massed within the context of the outrigger and windows to the rear of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, although larger than the existing orangery the proposal would appear as a well-designed secondary and subservient addition to the appeal dwelling and as a complementary addition within the extensions at the rear of the terrace of which the appeal dwelling forms part. Consequently, I find that the proposal accords with the objects of the SPD, in responding appropriately to the scale of the appeal property and the size of its garden and would not appear to overwhelm the appeal dwelling or to appear as an overly dominant or distractive built form within the context of the rear of the terrace within which it sits.

For the reasons given above the proposal does not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling or that of the Local area. As such, it would not be in conflict with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (2014) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek development, including by that of extension, that is of high design quality, responds to site context, including the scale, height, bulk and massing of adjacent townscape, and integrates with the local area.

Along with the standard condition on the timing of implementation, in the interest of design quality I have attached a condition requiring compliance with approved plans.

The appeal is allowed.