Demolition of existing rear conservatory and outbuilding, construction of a single storey part side and rear wrap around extension with 2.no rooflights, reaplacement of window and doors, a new window to side elevation and all other associated external works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 June 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000144 16 Prince Rupert Road, London SE9 1LS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Daniel Correia against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 24/3214/HD. • The development proposed is demolition of existing rear conservatory and outbuilding, construction of a single storey part side and rear wrap around extension with 2.no rooflights, reaplacement of window and doors, a new window to side elevation and all other associated external works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Progress Estate Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises 16 Prince Rupert Road (No 16), a 2-storey end-of- terrace dwelling, situated in an attractive residential area. The site is within the Progress Estate Conservation Area (conservation area). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) provides at s72(1) that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. 4. As explained in the Progress Estate Conservation Area Character Appraisal (adopted 2007), the significance of the conservation area, when considered as a whole, derives in part from its architectural and historic interest as a successful sophisticated exercise in the picturesque tradition of garden suburb town planning, in that there was a conscious attempt to emulate the organic growth of the traditional English village. The conservation area is notable for the stylistic character of the houses built as English romantic cottages, and for the Estate’s particular picturesque cottage townscape style, where minimal infill or demolition has occurred. 5. As an original estate building, No 16 contributes towards the significance of the conservation area through its intrinsic architectural and historic interest, by it forming an important architectural component of the terrace of which it forms a part, and by No 16 forming a part of the Estate’s picturesque townscape. Appeal Decision 6000144 2 6. The proposed development would introduce a single-storey part side and rear wrap-around extension. At the rear, it would span across and past the full width of No 16. Due to this, and its height at the rear, it would cover a significant portion of the rear elevation of No 16. Moreover, although it would be set-back from the front elevation, the depth of the side extension element would be considerable in comparison with the depth of No 16 as existing. Accordingly, although the guidance referred to from Historic England is noted, which provides that, amongst other things, an extension will usually have less effect on an historic home if it is built onto the back and not seen from the front, in this case the proposed development, when considered as a whole, would constitute a sizeable addition to No 16. 7. Due to its substantial size and scale in comparison with the original dwelling, the proposed development would subsume much of the reminder of this modestly- sized dwelling. The use of matching materials would not be sufficient to off-set its visual impact in this respect. Whilst the proposed development would not conflict with principle I.3.2 of the SPD1 (illustrated by Figure i.39 of the SPD), which relates to side extensions, the proposed development must be considered in its totality, as a wrap-around extension. As an addition out-of-proportion with its host dwelling, it would conflict with paragraph i.21 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, extensions that dominate the existing building in height, bulk or area are not supported. 8. The terrace of which No 16 forms a part has a largely consistent architectural style and form, despite the presence of extensions to some of these dwellings. As the modest and unassuming cottage-like character of No 16 would be diluted by the proposed development, and as the proposed development would constitute an uncharacteristic addition in its context, No 16’s contribution towards this consistency within the terrace would be reduced. The group value of the terrace in architectural and historic terms would be undermined. 9. I have had regard to the examples of extensions, highlighted by the appellant, some of which are visible from public vantage points. As far as can be ascertained from the photographs supplied and the limited descriptive information provided, it appears that the vast majority of these relate to either side extensions or to rear extensions, rather than to wrap-around extensions. 10. This includes the examples referred to at 19 Dickson Road, 7 Phineas Pett Road, 8 Prince Rupert Road, 22 Prince Rupert Road, and 24 Prince Rupert Road. Similarly, the development referred to at 35 Arsenal Road relates to rear extensions, rather than a wrap-around extension as proposed. Its impact on its host property is accordingly of a different quality than that proposed at No 16. As such, whilst these examples show that appropriately-designed and proportioned extensions have been built within the conservation area, and in other conservation areas, it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development. 11. In determining the application referred to at 17 Dickson Road (No 17), the Council noted that the host property is relatively large. This formed part of the Council’s reasoning that the proposed works would not over-dominate No 17. That is not the 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) Appeal Decision 6000144 3 case here, where No 16 is a modestly-sized dwelling. Hence, this example is also not so comparable as to alter my findings on this main issue. 12. It follows from the above that the picturesque cottage townscape style of the conservation area would be compromised by the proposed development. Although the proposed development would not be visible from within the street scene of Prince Rupert Road, views of the proposed development would be possible from the upper-floor windows of dwellings to the rear of the site and from the rear gardens of some nearby properties. Hence, the negative impacts upon the significance of the conservation area would be evident from these viewpoints, within the conservation area. Such harm would however be localised and therefore less than substantial. Even so, it must be given considerable importance and weight. The harm identified must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. 13. The proposed development would provide enlarged and enhanced living accommodation at No 16 (including an extra bedroom and an accessible toilet), to the benefit of its current and future occupiers. These would mainly comprise private benefits. The public benefits of the proposed development would however be limited. These would attract little weight. They would not outweigh the harm identified, taking account of the great weight given to the conservation of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset. 14. I therefore find that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. It would conflict with Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (adopted 2014) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, all developments are required to be of a high quality of design and to demonstrate that they positively contribute to the improvement of both the built and natural environments, and with Policy DH3 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the Royal Borough will protect and enhance the heritage assets and settings of Royal Greenwich. 15. The proposed development would conflict with Policy DH(a) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for rear, side and other additions (including basements) should be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the building and locality, and with part i) of Policy DH(h) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, planning permission will only be granted for proposals which pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. 16. The proposed development would conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that development proposals should respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character, and with part C of Policy HC1 of the London Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. Appeal Decision 6000144 4 Other Considerations and Planning Balance 17. I observed that the conservatory to the rear of No 16 has already been removed. The proposed development would remove the outbuilding to the rear of the site. I observed that the outbuilding, whilst appearing weathered in places, is not unattractive. It does not visually detract from the appearance of No 16. Considering this, and as the outbuilding does not appear out-of-place in its residential context, very little weight has been given to its proposed removal in support of the proposed development. 18. The proposed development would improve the thermal performance and airtightness of No 16. However, as the benefits in these respects have not been quantified, very little weight has been given to these benefits in support of the proposed development. 19. The proposed development would use land efficiently, which is encouraged by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The scale of the benefits to the local area in this regard would likely be minimal, resulting in very little weight in support of the proposed development. 20. As mentioned above, the proposed development would provide enlarged and enhanced living accommodation at No 16. The internal living space at No 16 would therefore be brought up to a standard suitable for contemporary living. As these would mainly comprise private benefits, and as it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims, this matter attracts little weight in support of the proposed development. 21. I have had regard to the aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 (as amended). The proposed development would provide accessible accommodation (including an accessible toilet) and a wheelchair charging dock, and so would positively contribute towards eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristic of disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others. The benefits in this regard are supported by paragraph 4.4.38 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, where possible the Council would wish to exercise discretion in allowing an extension, for instance a ground-floor bathroom and bedroom, to be added to a dwelling for the use of a person with a disability. 22. However, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development is the only way that these needs could be met, or that the proposed development represents the least harmful viable option. These particular circumstances therefore attract no more than moderate weight in favour of the proposed development. 23. The proposed development would cause harm to the significance of the conservation area, in conflict with the development plan. Given the great weight given to the conservation of this designated heritage asset, which is an irreplaceable resource, the collective benefits of the proposed development, whilst not insignificant, would not outweigh the harm identified. Overall, the relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. 24. The withholding of planning permission would interfere with the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation Appeal Decision 6000144 5 to the right to respect for his private and family life, and his home, and with the appellant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 (as amended). Nevertheless, as explained above, the proposed development would cause harm to the significance of the conservation area, and such harm would not be outweighed by public benefits. Thus, it would be proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal, having regard to the legitimate and well-established planning policy aim of conserving the historic environment. Conclusion 25. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR