Single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 March 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000075 59 Delafield Road, Charlton, Greenwich SE7 7NW • 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 H Thorne against the decision of The Council of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich. • The application ref is 24/3127/HD. • The development proposed is single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey side extension at 59 Delafield Road, Charlton, Greenwich SE7 7NW, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3127/HD, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: JND/1407/14, JND/1407/10, JND/1407/11, JND/1407/12, JND/1407/13, and JND/1407/15. 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 on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 61 Delafield Road. Reasons 4. The proposal would extend the dwelling to the side of the existing two storey rear outrigger, to occupy the existing space between that and the side boundary to No. 61 Delafield Road. The space beside the outrigger is already narrow and constrained by the two storey outrigger and three storey form of the main part of the dwelling. The arrangement is mirrored at the back of No. 61. The small yard areas are north facing, and thus daylight is already considerably restricted, and it Appeal Decision 6000075 2 was clear at my visit that these spaces are not the most attractive or usable areas of the gardens. 5. Unlike the appeal dwelling, the rear outrigger of No. 61 does not have a side facing bay window. The only window opening in this area is at the back of the main three storey part of the dwelling, which faces towards the rear garden. For the reasons given, this area is already constrained by the scale of the surrounding buildings. Both dwellings benefit from a generous rear garden. Beyond the outrigger these open to the full width of the plots and achieve a good level of sunlight and daylight at the far end, providing a pleasant outlook. 6. The proposal would create a solid side boundary that would face the neighbour and be higher than the existing fence. Whilst its presence would be obvious and there would be an impact, the view down the garden from the neighbour’s existing rear window would be little altered, and owing to the orientation of the dwellings, the level of daylight and direct sunlight that would reach the area close to the back of the dwelling would be largely unaffected by the proposal. Furthermore, the neighbouring dwelling is higher than the appeal dwelling, which would lessen its impact. 7. The extension would extend further than the distance referred to in the Council’s Design Guide1, however this is a largely irrelevant point as this relates to a rear extension, whereas the proposal is for an extension to the side of the existing rear outrigger. 8. In summary, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 61. It would accord with Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021, and Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals achieve environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use and avoid an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers. Conditions 9. No conditions have been suggested by the Council. I have considered what conditions would be appropriate in the context of the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition to specify the approved plans to give certainty. The proposal is otherwise modest and the plans are clearly annotated in respect of materials, to the extent that no further conditions are necessary. Conclusion 10. For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed. A Tucker INSPECTOR 1 Royal Borough Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023