First floor side extension, two storey part single storey rear extension

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: 18 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000168 18 Glendown Road, Abbey Wood, Greenwich SE2 0RJ • 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 Erkut Gulen against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 24/3877/HD. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “first floor side extension, two storey part single storey rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises 18 Glendown Road (No 18), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling with a single-storey side extension, situated in a residential area predominantly consisting of terraced dwellings. I observed that existing extensions are evident on nearby buildings, including 9 Glendown Road and 10 Glendown Road. Nevertheless, the design and scale of No 18 is broadly consistent with nearby properties. A gap is present between No 18 and 20 Glendown Road (No 20). 4. The existing single-storey side extension would be retained. The width of the proposed first floor side extension would exceed more than 50% of the width of No 18 as existing, in conflict with principle I.3.2 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) (SPD). It would not be set- back from the front elevation. It would not be set-down from the ridge of No 18’s main roof. Consequently, it would constitute an unduly bulky addition to No 18, and would not be subordinate to it. Hence, the proposed development would clearly conflict with principle I.3.2 of the SPD which seeks to ensure that side extensions remain secondary in scale in relation to the existing building and comfortably fit below the ridge and slope of the existing building. 5. Moreover, the proposed first floor side extension would significantly reduce the gap between Nos 18 and 20 at first floor level. The erosion of much of this gap would undermine its function in terms of it breaking up the mass of built form in this tight-knit residential area. Harm to the character of the area would thereby result. Appeal Decision 6000168 2 6. I observed 52 Bastion Road (No 52), which the appellant has put forward as a similar example to the proposed development. Given the siting of No 52 near the junction between Bastion Road and Glendown Road, with No 52 set apart from dwellings on the opposite side of Glendown Road, the extension of No 52 does not appear to have reduced the spaciousness of the area by any meaningful degree, in contrast to the proposed first floor side extension. As this example is not directly comparable with the proposed development, it does not change my findings on this main issue. 7. The proposed part one, part 2-storey rear extension would project approximately 3.5 metres from the rear of No 18. The ground floor element would span almost the full width of No 18. The first floor element would also constitute a sizeable addition, with a width that would cover the majority of the rear elevation and a marginal set-down from the ridge of the main roof. As such, although its hipped and tiled roof would be reflective of that at No 18 and the locality, the proposed part one, part 2-storey rear extension would constitute an addition of significant scale and bulk. It would not be subordinate to No 18 as existing. It would conflict with principle I.3.4 of the SPD which provides that, amongst other things, generally, any extension must not overwhelm the existing building. 8. Although the proposed materials would match those existing, in terms of its scale and massing, No 18 would no longer be sufficiently reflective of the terrace of which it forms a part. Rather, No 18 would appear over-sized in its context, to the detriment of the character of the streetscape. 9. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the 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 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. 10. The proposed development would conflict with part D 11) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, 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. 11. The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Other Matters 12. The proposed development would enhance the accommodation available at No 18, to the benefit of its current and future occupiers. As this would mainly Appeal Decision 6000168 3 constitute a private benefit, it merits little weight in support of the proposed development. 13. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Conclusion 14. 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