Rear dormer roof extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 03 March 2026 by R Higgins Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002644 2 Heath Villas, Greenwich, Plumstead SE18 1PG • 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 Renisha David against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/3231/HD. • The development is rear dormer roof extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. The initial planning application was submitted retrospectively, and at the time of my site visit the development had already been constructed. The works undertaken broadly correspond with the submitted drawings however, those drawings do not depict the chimney that is present on site. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the application and the plans provided. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character or appearance of the host dwelling and the Plumstead Common Conservation area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The Plumstead Common Conservation Area: Character Appraisal 2010 (CACA) explains that the area was designated to protect and enhance the ancient common land and the buildings that edge it, which frame important views across the common and contribute to its overall character. It highlights that the buildings facing the Common are predominantly two-storey terraces from the late nineteenth century. Although many are architecturally modest, their collective presence is valuable, and the long lines of typical Victorian terraces enhances the townscape character. 6. For this appeal, the CA’s significance lies principally in the uniformity of traditional form and detailing around the Common, combined with the quality of many of the buildings, which together create a distinctive and coherent sense of place. The Appeal Planning Officer 6002644 2 appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling which overlooks Winns Common. The houses are set back behind front gardens, and the area has a pleasant open feel. There is evidence of modest rear dormers in the area. 7. The rear dormer is considerably larger than the previously approved plans. Its increased size makes it visible from the public realm, including views along Heath Villas and Riverdale Road, where it reads as a prominent and intrusive feature on the roof. The height, width and proximity of the dormer to the ridgeline give the host dwelling a top-heavy appearance that disrupts the balance of the building. Rather than appearing as subordinate it overwhelms the rear slope and introduces a mass that is out of keeping with the proportions of the host dwelling. It dominates the roof form and disrupts the simple, traditional shape of the original building. 8. Overall, the dormer is unsympathetic to the original roof form. Its size, massing, and visibility result in a development that fails to respect the proportions and appearance of the host property. This causes harm to the character and appearance of the building, street scene and CA. 9. The development causes unacceptable harm to the character, appearance and historical significance of the appeal property and surrounding area to which I ascribe considerable importance and weight. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework states the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The development does provide additional living accommodation, but this would primarily benefit the occupiers of the appeal premises. Overall, there are no presented public benefits which would outweigh the identified harm. 10. Therefore, the proposal would be in conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of the adopted London Plan (2021), Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the CACA (2010). It would also be contrary to the guidance contained within the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Guidance (2023). Together these seek to ensure that new development respects the scale and character of the host building and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character or visual amenity of the built environment by preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. 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 dismissed. Rachel Higgins 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 dismissed. T Law Appeal Planning Officer 6002644 3 INSPECTOR