4-metre rear extension to existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 November 2025 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000728 52 Gourock Road, Eltham, London SE9 1HY • 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 Mehmet Sisman against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/1695/HD. • The development proposed is a 4-metre rear extension to existing house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 4-metre rear extension to existing house at 52 Gourock Road, Eltham, London SE9 1HY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1695/HD, and the plans submitted with it. 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 Matters 3. I have removed the term retrospective from the description as this is not a form of development. However, during my site visit I noted that the development is already in place, and I have considered the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of 54 Gourock Road (No 54), with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The single storey, rear extension has a side elevation which sits along the boundary dividing the appeal site from No 54. A set of patio doors belonging to No 54 sit close to this boundary and serve a habitable room. No 54 has a single storey projection of shallow depth, which sits to the other side of these patio doors. 6. In respect of ‘household extensions’, the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) states that a 3.6m projection from the rear is typically considered appropriate in Royal Greenwich. However, projections beyond this can be considered for certain typologies where neighbourly amenity is not compromised. Where appropriate it encourages the use of the BRE’s ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ guidance in assessing impact to daylight, including the general 45˚ guideline. Appeal Decision 6000728 2 7. Even though the extension goes beyond a 45˚ line taken from the centre of No 54’s patio doors, there is nothing to suggest that the large glazed opening provided by those patio doors does not facilitate suitable levels of sunlight and daylight from entering the respective room. Accounting for the generous extent of the neighbouring rear garden and the sun’s path, the extension is also unlikely to have resulted in any material effects on sunlight and daylight within the garden. 8. Furthermore, due to the single storey scale of the rear extension, the shallow depth of No 54’s own single storey rear projection and that this neighbouring dwelling’s patio doors look down a large garden, the development does not unacceptably enclose or encumber outlook for occupiers of No 54 9. Accordingly, the development has an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 54, with particular regard to outlook and light. Therefore, the development complies with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) which require that developments deliver appropriate outlook and amenity and do not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by reducing the amount of daylight and sunlight or result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure. Conditions 10. As the development has already been carried out in line with the details of the application, it is not necessary to attach any conditions including any timescales for implementation. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR