Demolition of existing side extension and construction of a single- storey side and a rear extension, with all associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2026 by P Barton BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009684 9 Leas Dale, Eltham, Greenwich SE9 3BZ  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 Ion Sirghi against the decision of the Council of the Royal London Borough of Greenwich.  The application Ref is 25/4103/HD.  The development proposed is demolition of existing side extension and construction of a single- storey side and a rear extension, with all associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing side extension and construction of a single-storey side and a rear extension, with all associated works, at 9 Leas Dale, Eltham, Greenwich SE9 3BZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/4103/HD, 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 drawing no. 201 Proposed Plans and Elevations. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. I have used the Council’s description of development in the banner heading above and in my formal decision for clarity and removed words not relating to acts of development. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is one half of a pair of 2-storey semi-detached properties, surrounded by similar semi-detached houses as well as short blocks of terraced houses on Leas Dale and surrounding roads. Whilst I observed a variety of alterations to a number of these properties, including side extensions, there remained a strong degree of harmony between them that influenced the overall character and appearance of this suburban location. Appeal Decision 6009684 2 5. The proposal would remove a modest single storey element, with a mono-pitch roof and a parapet wall facing the road, to the side elevation of No. 9 and it would be replaced by a larger flat roof single storey side extension that would occupy the paved space between the side of the house and the boundary with 7 Leas Dale. 6. Policy DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, adopted July 2014, (CS) resists flat roofs on side or rear extension when they would be visible from the public highway. Moreover, the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that roofs to single and 2-storey side extensions should reflect the roof pitch of the original house. However, the existing parapet wall gives the overall impression of a flat roof element to the side of the house, and in that regard, the visual impact of the proposed flat roof would be similar to the current situation. 7. The SPD also requires side extensions to be set back a minimum of 0.5m, typically be no more than 50% of the width of the original house and maintain an access walkway. Whilst the proposal would not meet these requirements, including being flush with the front elevation of the house, due to its low height, width consisting of only a moderate breach of the 50% threshold, and being setback from the road, behind established vegetation, it would be neither excessive, uncharacteristic nor unsympathetic. Furthermore, it would remain subservient to and in keeping with the host dwelling, as well as maintain the prevailing sense of openness between properties, and not dominate the street scene. 8. Although the proposal would not strictly comply with all aspects of the SPD, it is guidance rather than policy. I am satisfied that the circumstances of the appeal scheme at this particular site would broadly comply with the SPD’s overarching aim to create places that are well designed and fit for purpose. 9. In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It accords with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and CS Policies DH1 and DH(a). Collectively these seek, amongst other things, developments to respond to the existing character of a place and be of a scale and design appropriate to the building and the locality. Other Matters 10. I note concerns raised by an interested party including loss of light, disruption and traffic congestion. The Council’s officer report addresses these concerns, and these did not form part of the reason for refusal. There is no compelling evidence that would lead me to a different conclusion to the Council on these matters. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, as this provides certainty. A condition is also necessary for materials to match those used on the existing house to protect the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P Barton INSPECTOR