Single storey wrap around extension with internal and external facilitating works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005967 276 Broad Walk, Kidbrooke, Greenwich SE3 8NH • 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 Jenkins against the decision of Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/4106/HD. • The development proposed is a single storey wrap around extension with internal and external facilitating works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey wrap around extension with internal and external facilitating works at 276 Broad Walk, Kidbrooke, Greenwich, SE3 8NH, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/4106/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 drawing nos 1795-1.00 (OS Location Map), 1795-3.01 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan), 1795-3.02 (Proposed First Floor Plan), 1795-3.03 (Proposed Roof Plan), 1795-3.11 (Proposed Front Elevation), 1795-3.12 (Proposed Section AA), 1795-3.13 (Proposed Side Elevation A), 1795-3.14 (Proposed Side Elevation B) and 1795-3.15 (Proposed Rear Elevation). 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials as indicated on the application form. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached two-storey dwelling situated on a corner plot in a residential area. Even though the dwellings on this part of Broad Walk are generally consistent in terms of their scale and appearance, many feature Appeal Decision 6005967 2 extensions and alterations. This includes a large two-storey side extension at 278 Broad Walk adjacent to the site, as well as various other two-storey and single storey side and rear extensions. Therefore, alterations to properties including side and rear extensions are an established part of the street scene and contribute positively to a varied character and appearance in the area. 5. The dwellings situated on corner plots in the area are mostly set in from the footway, thus contributing to an open character in the street scene. This is the case for the appeal property, where its side elevation is set in from the footway, providing a gap which contributes to the spaciousness of the area. Accordingly, the siting of the appeal property contributes positively to the open character. That being said, I observed on my site visit that the dwelling at the corner plot opposite the appeal site is built to the boundary, indicating that not all corner plots in the surrounding area exhibit an open character. 6. The proposal is for a wraparound extension to the host dwelling, comprising single storey side and rear extensions. The Council has raised no concerns in terms of the false pitch and flat roof design of the extension. It also indicates that it would find the single storey rear extension to be acceptable in isolation. The Council’s concerns are therefore focussed on the size of the wraparound extension in terms of whether or not it would be proportionate to the host dwelling, as well as its effect on the openness of the corner plot. 7. In terms of side extensions on corner plots, the Council’s Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) advises that these should be set back from the boundary by one metre and be proportionate to the dimensions of the main house. This is in order to maintain the open aspect of corner plots and protect the character of the street. 8. The plans do not identify the distance between the side elevation of the extension and the boundary. Nevertheless, they show that the extension would be set in from the side boundary to a sufficient degree. Therefore, despite its wraparound design, it would not significantly erode the open aspect of the corner plot. Furthermore, the single storey height and predominantly flat roof form of the extension would reduce its size and bulk. As a result, the extension would not appear disproportionate to the host dwelling. Accordingly, the proposal would be in keeping with the varied character and appearance of the street scene and would not unacceptably erode the open character of the corner plot. 9. The Council refer to areas of special character and cite conflict with Policy DH(l) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) (CS). However, the officer report does not provide an analysis of the relevant area of special character where the site is located, beyond the characteristics which I have described above. Consequently, in the absence of any information to the contrary, the site’s location in an area of special character does not alter my findings. 10. For the above reasons, the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would comply with Policies D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the CS, which amongst other matters, require that developments are of a high-quality design and take account of the existing townscape, layout and spatial character. For the reasons set out above, while there is insufficient information to confirm Appeal Decision 6005967 3 whether the proposal would conflict with Policy DH(l) of the CS, this is not determinative on the appeal overall. 11. The proposal would also be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other matters, advise that extensions should respond appropriately to the host building and the streetscape and that developments should be sympathetic to local character. Conditions 12. The standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. A materials condition is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. The proposed development would comply with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations which would alter this finding. Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR