Rear partial extension, side extension, front porch with renovation of existing elevations with external insulations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010488 41 Purneys Road, Eltham SE9 6HX • 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 James Bright Omohegbe against the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council. • The application reference is 26/0612/HD. • The development proposed is a rear partial extension, side extension, front porch with renovation of existing elevations with external insulations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The council have described the application as ‘Construction of a front porch, and a single-storey side and rear wrap-around extension incorporating rooflights; replacement of render and installation of external cladding, with associated works’. Although the appellant has indicated that he is generally happy with that description, it is not clear that the changed description was agreed. I have therefore used the description on the application form as this satisfactorily describes the proposal. 4. The dwelling is an end terrace property that has a timber lean-to garage to the side. The neighbouring property also has a garage to the side and together these fill the gap between these two storey houses at ground floor level. The appeal property has a rear ground floor extension along the shared boundary with 39 Purneys Road which is of a similar depth to the adjoining rear extension. The proposal would result in a single consolidated wrap-around extension that would extend forward of the front elevation, replace the garage and extend along the shared boundary to a point level with the depth of the existing rear extension which it would link into. 5. The front extension would extend just over 1.8 metres forward of the main frontage, with an additional overhang; and would be just under five metres wide. It is evident that care has been had with regard to its form and detailing. Although departing from the generally uniform appearance of these houses, a contemporary design approach and the proposed distinctive materials and window details, have the potential to add interest to the appearance of the property. The external cladding Appeal Decision: 6010488 2 and insulation would be acceptable with regard to the relationship with the attached dwelling. 6. Views of the unrelieved side element of the combined front and side extension, although partially screened, would be clearly evident. The contrasting appearance, although adding some interest, would draw attention to it. It would represent a positive approach to updating and investing in the fabric of this dwelling, including being of a high standard with regard to the quality of materials. However, given the depth of the forward projection and its position on the side boundary and so close to the neighbouring dwelling, the works extending beyond the frontage would appear overly dominant. Whilst a similar addition to a house in more spacious grounds could represent good design, in these particular circumstances, it would be overly dominant given its position on the boundary; and given the depth of its forward projection in such close proximity to the frontage of the neighbouring dwelling. It would therefore detract from the character and appearance of the area and it would not represent good design in this particular context. 7. Whilst the proposal has positive design elements and would make a more efficient use of the site, the over dominance, due to the scale of the front projection and its proximity to its neighbour, would result in conflict with the design expectations of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021); and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy (2014). Whilst the contemporary design approach gains some support from part I.3.6 of the council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023), it conflicts with its expectations with regard to dominance of the front façade. It would also conflict with the design expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8. There are a range of additions to other properties in this area. This proposal would have benefits over some of them with regard to improved unity of elements, design quality and materials. This proposal must however be considered on its own merits and in any event, the examples provided do not suggest that this development should be accepted. I have had regard to the support for the proposal offered and the benefits that the additional accommodation would bring to the appellant’s family. I am mindful also of the positive investment required for such works and the thermal improvements that would result. 9. Although there are a number of matters that provide weight in favour of the proposal, these are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would result due to the scale, forward projection and proximity of the frontage element to the neighbouring dwelling; and the impact of this on the character and appearance of the area. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR