Erection of a single storey infill extension with depth of 6 metres maximum and boundary height no higher than 2 metres

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: 17 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000119 25 Crumpsall Street, Abbey Wood, Greenwich SE2 0LP • 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 Mrs C Tabor against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 24/3604/HD. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Erection of a single storey infill extension with depth of 6 metres maximum and boundary height no higher than 2 metres ”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a single storey side rear infill extension and new rooflight to existing rear outrigger at 25 Crumpsall Street, Abbey Wood, Greenwich, SE2 0LP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3604/HD, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site and Location Plan (Drawing No. RE117-00), Proposed Floor Plans (Drawing No. RE117-03 (Rev. A)), Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. RE117-04 (Rev. A)). Preliminary Matter 2. Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Construction of a single storey side rear infill extension and new rooflight to existing rear outrigger". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal and in my decision since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 23 Crumpsall Street, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, sunlight, and daylight. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises 25 Crumpsall Street (No 25), a 2-storey mid-terrace Victorian-era dwelling with a 2-storey rear outrigger and a single-storey rear extension, situated in a predominantly residential area. Appeal Decision 6000119 2 5. No 25 is connected to 23 Crumpsall Street (No 23), which has a 2-storey rear outrigger and a single-storey lean-to with a side-sloping, mono-pitched roof. Its side return runs along the boundary with the site. I saw that the outlook from the rear living room window on the ground floor at No 23 is heavily constrained on one side by the presence of the boundary fence between No 23 and No 25, and on the other side by No 23’s 2-storey rear outrigger. 6. The proposed extension would project approximately 6 metres beyond the main rear wall of No 25 and would be approximately 2 metres wide. The plot at No 23 is sat lower than that at No 25. Even so, due to its proposed height, at its closest point to No 23 the proposed extension would only marginally protrude above the existing boundary fence. The remainder of the roof of the proposed extension would slope away from the boundary, meaning that the introduction of the proposed extension would not significantly increase the amount of built form along the boundary. 7. As such, the proposed development would not worsen the existing situation with respect to the available outlook from the rear living room window to a degree that would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 23. Similarly, due to the presence of the fence and No 23’s 2-storey rear outrigger, and taking account of the limited height of the proposed extension above the fence, the proposed development would not appear as an obtrusive feature along the boundary, nor would it unduly exacerbate the existing sense of enclosure for users of the living room or the side return. 8. The existing 2-storey rear outrigger at No 25 currently blocks an appreciable level of sunlight from reaching No 23’s side return and its rear living room window. As the proposed extension would sit flush with that outrigger and No 25’s single- storey rear extension, and its maximum height would not be higher than that single-storey rear extension, any further shadowing caused by the proposed development would be minimal. Due to its limited height adjacent to the boundary, and taking account of its proposed depth, the reduction in daylight received to the side return and the rear living room window would be limited. Hence, the living conditions of the occupiers of No 23 would not be harmed with respect to sunlight and daylight. 9. Taking all of the above into account, the proposed development would comply with principle I.2.1 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) which provides that an extension will only be granted permission if it does not create an unacceptable level of impact on neighbours’ daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and privacy. 10. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 23, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, sunlight, and daylight. It would comply with Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (adopted 2014) which provides that when determining applications for new developments, extensions or renovations of buildings, the Royal Borough will only permit an application where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development does not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight, sunlight or privacy they enjoy or result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure. Appeal Decision 6000119 3 11. The proposed development would also comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. Conditions 12. I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively. 13. I have not imposed a condition relating to the control of external materials since sufficient detail thereof is shown on the approved plans which are covered by a separate condition (condition 2). 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 allowed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR