Double storey side extension to convert the existing garage as a new kitchen at ground floor and create a new bedroom with ensuite bathroom in the first floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 February 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000056 28 The Knole, Eltham SE9 3DR  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 Sasikumar Jeyaratnam against the decision of The Council of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich.  The application Ref is 24/2353/HD.  The development proposed is double storey side extension to convert the existing garage as a new kitchen at ground floor and create a new bedroom with ensuite bathroom in the first floor. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions. Main Issue 3. The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling stands in an area of similarly styled dwellings that are arranged in pairs or terraces. It is at one end of a terrace of four dwellings, and, along with two other matching terraced rows, it forms a small cul-de-sac. The three terraced blocks are each divided evenly into four dwellings, with a symmetrical fenestration and evenly placed chimneys. 5. The appeal dwelling includes an existing attached garage. This is a large addition, but it is not overly prominent as a result of its flat roof, and it does not dilute the strong form of the original terrace. 6. The proposal would see this garage redeveloped and extended to form a full width and full height extension, that would be tantamount to adding another dwelling to the end of the terrace. The extension would not have a reduced massing or be set back to give it an appropriately additive or secondary form, as is suggested in the Council’s guidance1. As a result, it would erode the original form of the terrace, 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 Appeal Decision 6000056 2 harming its symmetry and unbalancing the pleasing consistency that exists between the three terraces that form the cul-de-sac. 7. The appellant suggests that the form of the extension is dictated by the existing garage. However, there are various ways that the vertical load of new walls could be managed so that they do not sit directly over the walls of the existing garage. I am not therefore satisfied that the existing garage should mean that there is only one way to extend the dwelling. 8. In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan 2021, and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals are well designed, and positively respond to local distinctiveness. Conclusion 9. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR