Conversion of a garage into a habitable room incorporating the removal of the garage door and its replacement with a window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2022 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th August 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/22/3298004 36 Barlow Drive, Woolwich, London SE18 4NE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Russell Wylie against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref 22/0265/HD, dated 22 January 2022, was refused by notice dated 19 April 2022. • The development proposed is the conversion of a garage into a habitable room incorporating the removal of the garage door and its replacement with a window. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the terrace and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property forms part of a terrace of four, 2-storey, symmetrically arranged houses. The terrace features prominent gables and forward projecting garages with terraces above. It forms parts of a relatively high- quality housing development that is notable for its uniformity and the repetition of a range of forms of housing with similar features. Amongst the elements that are repeated throughout the development are black painted garage doors. These are therefore a unifying aspect of the character and appearance of the area. In the few instances where garage doors have been replaced by windows the unity of the area has been denuded. 4. The proposal would comprise the replacement of the garage door with a large window to enable the formation of a lounge in place of the garage. The window would be an incongruous feature that would detract from the underlying unity of the terrace and the estate as a whole. As a consequence the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the terrace and the surrounding area. 5. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies DH(a) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) which, among other matters, require development to be of a high quality of design, limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality. The proposal is contrary to the Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/22/3298004 2 aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018). Conclusion 6. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR