Demolition of existing outbuilding, part single, part two storey side/rear extension. Minor alterations at the rear of the property with new French doors and alterations to replace existing rear bay with new steps down to the rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2026 By SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004974 62 Hardy Road, Blackheath, Greenwich SE3 7NN • 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 & Mrs A Riddle against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/3126/HD. • The development proposed is demolition of existing outbuilding, part single, part two storey side/rear extension. Minor alterations at the rear of the property with new French doors and alterations to replace existing rear bay with new steps down to the rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing outbuilding, part single, part two storey side/rear extension. Minor alterations at the rear of the property with new French doors and alterations to replace existing rear bay with new steps down to the rear garden at 62 Hardy Road, Blackheath, Greenwich SE3 7NN in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference 25/3126/HD and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 504.S10 (A), 504.P10 (B), 504.P11 (B), 504.P21 (B), 504.P41 (B), 504.P51 (B), 504.P101 (B), 504.P111 (B), and Planning Fire Safety Strategy. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Westcombe Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises a two-storey detached, inter-war, dwelling within a predominantly residential area. The surrounding context is characterised by a varied mix of architectural styles and building forms. The dwelling has a well- balanced primary facade, recessed elements and a distinctive main roof profile, Appeal Decision 6004974 2 resulting in an attractive and architecturally distinctive building. It occupies a notably wide plot, and while not prominent in the street scene, an appreciable first- floor gap to the adjacent built form to the south allows views towards mature rear landscaping. 4. The appeal site is also located in the CA. The terms of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 5. The Westcombe Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2010) (CACA) identifies the area’s significance as arising from its spacious layout, generous plots, mature landscaping and varied architectural forms, which together create its architectural and historic interest. It highlights the importance of green views between buildings, while recognising the area has evolved incrementally, resulting in a diverse rather than uniform townscape. The appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution through its architectural form and landscape setting. 6. The proposed part two-storey side extension would be set back from the principal elevation, located behind and above the existing garage, and set below the main roof ridge. This ensures it would remain clearly subordinate to the host dwelling and distinct from the existing garage. The original facade would retain its primacy, with the extension reading as a recessive, secondary addition in accordance with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning document (2013) (the SPD). The design reflects the architectural character of the host building and uses materials that respond to its established palette. 7. Separation would be retained at first-floor level between the appeal dwelling and the adjacent property to the south. This would continue to allow filtered views towards rear gardens and mature landscaping, preserving the spatial qualities identified in the CACA. The retained gap, together with the recessed upper floor and the subservient scale of the extension, would maintain a sense of openness and avoid any perception of terracing. 8. While the Council suggests the extension would be prominent in the street, this does not fully reflect its set-back position and the visual containment of the site. It would be viewed mainly obliquely and, given its recessive siting and existing street tree screening, would not appear dominant or overbearing. Furthermore, the appeal dwelling is not experienced in isolation, the wider CA contains a broad range of architectural styles, building forms and separation distances, reflecting a well- established pattern of incremental change over time. In this context, where visible, the proposal would not appear incongruous but would instead read as a continuation of this prevailing pattern of development. 9. Taking these factors together, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA, preserving its overall character and appearance. The alteration to the host dwelling would have limited visual impact and, where visible, would read as a proportionate response to its context, forming part of the area’s architectural evolution rather than representing a discernible impact upon its heritage value. 10. The Council has raised no concerns in respect of the rear infill extension, addition of steps and modifications to fenestration. Based upon the evidence before me, and my observations on site, I concur with that assessment. Appeal Decision 6004974 3 11. The appeal dwelling is in reasonable proximity to a locally listed group of properties at 121, 123 and 124 Coleraine Road. The Council considers that the proposal would not materially affect the significance of these non-designated heritage assets. Given the substantial separation distance and the presence of mature intervening landscaping observed on site, I agree with this assessment. This is a neutral consideration in the assessment of the appeal. 12. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would also preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and there would be no harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. As such, the proposal would accord with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a) and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014), which amongst other things, seek to protect heritage assets and deliver design that protects the character of existing buildings. For the same reasons, the proposal accords with overall design principles of the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) in relation to achieving good design and conserving the historic environment. Conditions 13. I have considered the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is also reasonable and necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR