Described on the planning application form as ‘Proposed part single/two storey side and rear extensions and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 July 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 August 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000208 60 Alnwick Road, Eltham, Greenwich SE12 9BQ • 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 K Abdulsalam against the decision of the Council of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/0139/HD. • The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘Proposed part single/two storey side and rear extensions and front porch’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed part single/two storey side and rear extensions and front porch at 60 Alnwick Road, Eltham, Greenwich SE12 9BQ in accordance with the terms of application Ref 25/0139/HD, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing numbers: 110125/5 Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 110125/6 Proposed First Floor Plan; 110125/7 Proposed Roof Plan; 110125/8 Proposed Elevations; 110125/9 Proposed Sections; Site Location Plan dated 23 December 2024 and Proposed Block Plan (undated). Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area. Reasons 3. The area is characterised by a mix of terraced and semi-detached properties with hipped roofs. The gaps between the groups of properties are not uniform but it does give the area a spacious character. 4. The host property is located adjacent to a semi-detached pair of dwellings and is the end property in a short terrace. The terrace has a stepped roofline and the dwelling at the opposite end of the terrace has a flat roof garage to the side. Accordingly, the terrace does not display strong symmetry. 5. The proposed two storey extension would extend to the side and rear of the host dwelling. It would be less than half the width of the existing dwelling, set back from the front elevation and set down from the existing ridge under a hipped roof. Whilst it would not be set back the full 0.5 metres as required by the Urban Design Guide Appeal Decision 6000208 2 Supplementary Planning Document, adopted October 2023 (SPD), the proposed extension would nonetheless appear as a subservient addition, respecting the scale and character of the host dwelling. It would also continue the stepped roofline of the terrace and for these reasons, would not unbalance the already asymmetrical terrace. 6. The proposed extension would reduce the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring semi-detached house. However, the host dwelling occupies a slightly elevated position, and the appeal proposal would retain a side access walkway. Therefore, the relative siting and positioning of the appeal site with the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling means that it would not result in a terracing effect nor harmfully erode the spacious character of the area. 7. The rear projection would be visible from the street through the opening between the dwelling and the neighbouring semi-detached property. However, its hipped roof would be set well down from the main roof. This would assist in reducing its visual mass and consequently it would not appear as a dominant or incongruous addition from the street. It would project out from the rear elevation by three metres with a hipped roof. Consequently, it would not appear as a large or bulky addition. 8. The SPD recognises that its suggested minimum distance of 300mm between the roofline of a rear single storey extension and the first floor windowsills, is not always achievable. 9. Even when considered cumulatively, the proposed extensions would not overwhelm the existing dwelling or detract from the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy D3 of The London Plan adopted March 2021 which seeks to optimise the capacity of sites and respond to the site’s context and Policies DH1 and DH(a)of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, adopted July 2014 which seek high quality design which positively contributes to the built environment. Other Matters 10. There is no substantive evidence before me that the proposed works would cause damage to any neighbouring property. Disruption during construction is inevitable with almost all development proposals but would be a relatively short-term impact and does not render the proposal unacceptable. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 12. The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR