Loft conversion to infill the space between 2 existing gables, whilst maintaining the double gable feature to the side by setting the extension back. Creating 2 additional bedrooms and a living area to the top floor. The addition of a glazed rooflight to the rear overlooking the City, with 5 no. conservation style rooflights to the front of the property

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: 23 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000231 76 Coleraine Road, Blackheath, London SE3 7PE • 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 David McCann against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 24/3840/HD. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Loft conversion to infill the space between 2 existing gables, whilst maintaining the double gable feature to the side by setting the extension back. Creating 2 additional bedrooms and a living area to the top floor. The addition of a glazed rooflight to the rear overlooking the City, with 5 no. conservation style rooflights to the front of the property”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. An amended plan was submitted at the appeal stage1. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage. The guidance further states that even potentially beneficial changes may need to be subject to re-consultation, so that interested parties can consider whether that would be the case. 3. The amended plan incorporates a change which would alter the visual impact of the proposed development, which relates to the main issue in this appeal. This is also a matter which the Westcombe Society Environment Committee expressed views on at application stage. In the interests of fairness to interested parties, I have considered the same plans that the Council determined the planning application on. To do otherwise would deprive those who should have been consulted on the change, the opportunity of such consultation. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Westcombe Park Conservation Area. 1 Proposed Section A-A (Drawing No. 250 (Rev. B)) Appeal Decision 6000231 2 Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises 76 Coleraine Road (No 76), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling with an original double-pitched roof form, situated in a particularly attractive and verdant residential area. The site is located within the Westcombe Park 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. 6. I have had regard to the Westcombe Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal (adopted 2010) (character appraisal). The significance of the conservation area, when considered as a whole, derives in part from the rich and distinctive character of its townscape, comprising buildings of considerable architectural value, including numerous locally listed buildings, and good quality late Victorian and Edwardian buildings set within leafy, quiet and spacious residential streets. 7. The character appraisal describes Coleraine Road as comprising groups of fine quality late-Victorian buildings with a richness and complexity of architectural features and detailing. This description applies to No 76, which is a locally listed building. It forms part of a group of such buildings. Together, this group of buildings have significant townscape value. Specifically, the listing description for 60 to 78 Coleraine Road (even) refers to yellow stock bricks with red brick dressings, pitched gable roofs with ornamental ridge tiles, and projecting bays. 8. The proposed development would infill the space between the existing gables. Due to the minimal separation distance between No 76 and 74 Coleraine Road, the limited available views of No 76’s side elevation from Coleraine Road, and the proposed set-in from its side elevation, this element of the proposed development would be largely unseen from public vantage points. As such, whilst the original roof form of No 76 would be altered, this aspect of the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the significance of the conservation area. 9. Rooflights are not commonly found on the front roof slopes of dwellings within the locally listed group. Even so, due to their modest size, appropriate siting on the roof slope, and conservation style, the proposed rooflights would acceptably harmonise with the appearance of No 76 and would not appear out-of-keeping in the street scene. This aspect of the proposed development would also have a neutral effect on the significance of the conservation area. 10. The proposed dormer extension would span across the majority of the rear roof slope. With a height of approximately 2.4 metres, it would be a tall structure relative to the roof as a whole. Due to the angle of its rear wall, it would noticeably protrude from the roof. As such, it would appear as a bulky, prominent, and overly- dominant addition to the roof. It would not be secondary in scale to the main roof, as advocated by paragraph i.67 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023). This is demonstrated by the photomontage supplied by the appellant. 11. Moreover, such an addition would be out-of-keeping with 78 Coleraine Road’s almost completely undisturbed rear roof form. It would also not be reflective of the majority of the rear roof forms present on the group of locally listed buildings of which No 76 forms a part, which are also typically unaltered. Thus, it would Appeal Decision 6000231 3 represent a disfiguring roof extension, which is identified as a ‘threat to character’ in the character appraisal. 12. It follows that, in addition to the harm caused to the appearance of No 76, the semi-detached pair of which it forms a part, and the group of locally listed buildings referred to above, the distinctive character of Coleraine Road would be undermined. This would harm the significance of the conservation area when considered as a whole. 13. I saw that the rear elevation of No 76 is visible from Webb Road. Although some of its roof is currently obscured by soft landscaping, should this be removed at any time, the proposed development would be in full view from Webb Road. Accordingly, the presence of soft landscaping cannot be relied upon to mitigate the harms identified above. 14. I note that several buildings on Coleraine Road, and many within the wider conservation area, have been extended and adapted in recent times, as highlighted by the appellant. In particular, I observed the dormers present on the rear roof slope of 68 Coleraine Road. As only selected quotes from the Inspector’s appeal decision have been provided, the full reasoning that resulted in their approval is unclear. In any event, whilst that development forms part of the local context, it consists of quite a different design to the proposed development. 15. The single rear dormer at 73 Coleraine Road has a lesser roof coverage than the proposed development, and is of a different design. I saw the dormer / rooflight on the rear roof slope of 70 Coleraine Road (No 70). I have had regard to appeal decision Ref APP/E5330/D/20/3261641. The width, depth, and height of the proposed dormer exceeds that at No 70 to such an extent that the proposed development would appear as a more obtrusive addition to the rear roof slope of No 76, when compared with that example. As none of these examples are directly comparable with the proposed development, they do not change my findings on this main issue. 16. It follows from the above that the significance of the conservation area would be compromised. The harm caused to its character and appearance would however be localised, resulting in less than substantial harm to its significance. Nevertheless, this harm must be given considerable importance and weight. It must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. 17. In this regard, the proposed development would enhance the living accommodation available at No 76, and would increase its thermal performance. As these would mainly comprise private benefits, the public benefits of the proposed development attract little weight. Considering the great weight afforded to the conservation of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, the public benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm identified. 18. 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, Appeal Decision 6000231 4 the Royal Borough will protect and enhance the heritage assets and settings of Royal Greenwich. 19. The proposed development would conflict with part iii. of Policy DH(a) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all new roof extensions should be designed to respect the scale and character of the host building, the street scene and the surrounding area, 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. 20. The proposed development would conflict with Policy DH(j) of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for the demolition or unsympathetic alteration of locally listed buildings will be strongly discouraged. 21. The proposed development would conflict with part D 1) of Policy D3 of the London Plan (published 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness, 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. 22. The proposed development would also conflict with chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment. 23. Policy DH(b) of the Local Plan, mentioned in the Council’s decision notice, relates to the protection of amenity for adjacent occupiers, and so is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 24. The appellant has mentioned that the proposed development would increase the thermal performance of No 76. However, the scale of the benefits in this regard have not been quantified. As such, these benefits merit little weight in favour of the proposed development. 25. The proposed development would expand the living accommodation at No 76, to the benefit of its current and future occupiers, including by providing rooms potentially well-suited for use by children and / or for home working. These benefits would however be largely private in nature, resulting in no more than moderate weight in support of the proposed development. 26. Harm has been identified to the significance of the conservation area, which is an irreplaceable resource. In this respect, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan. This is a matter which attracts great weight in opposition to the proposed development. Whilst I have had regard to the policies referred to by the appellant in Appendix D of their appeal statement, the benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm identified. Overall, the relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Appeal Decision 6000231 5 Conclusion 27. 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