Ground floor rear extension and side return infill

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 November 2025 by Kim Vo MPLAN Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000366 9 Park Row, Greenwich SE10 9NG • 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. Alex Jones against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/0406/HD. • The development proposed is described as “ground floor rear extension and side return infill. Replacement of all existing sash windows. Internal alterations.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development described as “ground floor rear extension and side return infill. Replacement of all existing sash windows. Internal alterations.” at 9 Park Row, Greenwich SE10 9NG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0406/HD, 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 the approved plans, drawing references: 2.01.01; 2.11.01; 2.12.01; 2.12.02A (Revision A); 2.12.03A (Revision A); 2.12.04A (Revision A); 2.12.05A (Revision A); 2.13.01; 2.13.02A (Revision A); 2.13.03A (Revision A); 2.14.01; 2.14.02A (Revision A); 2.14.03; 2.14.04; 5.13.02A (Revision A); 5.13.04. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as they are set out on the application form. 4) The replacement windows hereby permitted shall not be installed until details of their glazing type and depth have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The windows shall then be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 3. The Council raised no concern regarding the proposed replacement windows and internal alterations. I find no reason to disagree with their conclusions thereon. My Appeal Decision 6000366 2 recommendation therefore focuses on the ground floor rear element. The main issue in regard to which is whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Greenwich Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a three storey dwelling at the end of a Victorian row of terraced houses in a residential area. It is adjoined by two later dwellings which extends the original terrace. Within the Victorian row, there is a collective uniformity through their architectural design and material palette. Distinctive features to the frontage include bay and sash windows, decorative window and door heads, and low brick boundary walls. To the rear, each dwelling features an original flat roof two storey outrigger, establishing a coherent building rhythm. Variously sized single storey rear extensions infilling to the side and beyond the outriggers are also evident, with the exception of the appeal site. Collectively, all these elements reinforce the traditional consistency and originality of the row, which positively contributes to the architectural significance of the CA. 5. The proposed extension would exceed the depth guidance outlined under Principle I.3.3 of the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD). However, the SPD offers design guidance, and the proposal would integrate well with the evolved rear built forms, which are defined by a sequence of existing single storey rear extensions. Whilst it would have the largest depth, it would appear proportionate and similar in footprint to the other extensions, some of which are already of a sizable projection and include the adjoining property at Number 8 Park Row. Moreover, given the long, narrow shape of the rear garden, its overall form would not appear dominant in relation to the plot. 6. Due to its single storey height and flat roof design, it would appear as a subservient addition to the host dwelling. Its modest scale, together with the high boundary walls would also allow for the legibility of the rear outrigger to be maintained and would not appear incongruous from surrounding private vantage points. The proposed roof would reflect the flat roof elements of the existing rear extensions, and the use of matching materials would sit comfortably with the traditional setting of the CA. Allowing this scheme would not automatically set a precedent for similar proposals, as they would be required to go through their own site and development specific assessment. 7. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) places emphasis on great weight being given to the asset’s conservation. Given the assessment above, the proposal would ensure that both the character and appearance of the CA is preserved. 8. The appeal scheme would thus comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021; Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan 2014; and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure developments proposals are of a high quality design and limited to a scale appropriate to the building and locality. Developments are also expected to consider historical features, enhancing heritage assets and the architectural features that contribute towards the local character. Appeal Decision 6000366 3 Conditions 9. To provide clarity and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and to specify the approved plans. A condition is also necessary to ensure the materials accord with the details submitted in the application form, and for details of the proposed replacement windows’ glazing to be provided, to ensure a high quality result, in the interests of the significance of the CA. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in the circumstances set out and subject to the conditions explained, given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. Kim Vo APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the stated conditions. John Morrison INSPECTOR