Erection of first floor rear/side extension

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: 20 February 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000066 10 High Point, Eltham, Greenwich SE9 3NZ • 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 Ms Narinderjit Kaur Panesar against the decision of The Council of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich. • The application ref is 24/3342/HD • The development proposed is erection of first floor rear/side extension. 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. 3. At the time of my visit the construction of a single storey extension was under way. It is suggested by the appellant that what is built so far accords with an extant permission for a single storey extension1. The plans for this are not before me. It is not for me to come to a view on this either way in the context of this appeal, however I note that what is shown on the appeal drawings and referred to as existing does not accord with what I saw on site, which suggests pitched roofs to the rear and side. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal dwelling is at one end of a short terrace that forms part of a small housing estate that is tucked in behind other housing. The buildings that make up the estate utilise straightforward forms, with full gables and limited additions. 6. The proposal would take the form of two first floor elements that would straddle the rear corner of the existing dwelling, with one that would project to the rear and one to the side. As a result, although the extensions would be sizeable when considered together, they would both have relatively modest additive forms, that would give them a subservient relationship with the host dwelling and ensure that 1 Allowed at appeal, Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/E5330/D/21/3276009 Appeal Decision 6000066 2 they would not appear overly large. The width of the front extension would be successfully mitigated by its significant set back from the front of the terrace. 7. They would however terminate with hipped roofs, that would be significantly at odds with the strong and simple gable ends of the host terrace and the other dwellings in the small estate. This uncomfortable relationship would be made worse by a mis match of roof pitches, which would create an odd mix of forms that would appear clumsy and ill related to the host terrace, especially where the two extensions would be viewed together from the rear of neighbouring dwellings. The importance of matching pitches is referred to in paragraph i.79 of the Council’s guidance2. 8. In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policy D3 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 existing forms, massing and proportions. Conclusion 9. For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed. A Tucker INSPECTOR 2 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023