Construction of a two storey side extension; a first floor rear extension and a single storey rear infill and front /porch extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 August 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011788 170 Marvels Lane, London SE12 9PJ • 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 Bahador Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref is DC/26/142837. • The development proposed is construction of a two storey side extension; a first floor rear extension and a single storey rear infill and front /porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was issued on 17 August 2026, which replaces the previous Framework published in December 2024 and all other iterations. I have therefore written to seek the views of the Appellant and the Council on the revised Framework as pertinent to this appeal and I have taken the further representations received into account in my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a vacant detached dwelling on the south-west side of Marvels Lane and within a predominantly residential area with a mix of development styles, including detached and semi-detached dwellings and small blocks of flats. Although the spacing between properties varies, there are generally open gaps between properties, particularly in the vicinity of the appeal site which contribute to the street scene. 5. At the time of my site visit, the roof works as granted under the application for a lawful development certificate (proposed) under the Council’s ref: DC/25/141724 appeared to be largely complete and the single storey extension as granted under an application for prior approval under the Council’s ref: DC/25/140902 was well advanced with the external walls and roof complete. The two storey side extension, which does not appear to be lawful from the information provided by the Council, Appeal Decision 6011788 2 was partly demolished. The whole property was vacant, with works being undertaken. 6. The proposed works include the construction of a two storey and part single storey side extension, a first floor rear extension, and a front porch. 7. The proposed two storey side extension would be built forwards of the existing front building line to incorporate the new enclosed front porch but set back at first floor level with the existing front of the house. It would be built up to the common boundary with the adjoining property at No 168 which also has a two storey side extension, albeit set in with a modest gap from the shared boundary. 8. As a result of the proposed two storey side extension, and given the existence of the extension at the neighbouring property there would be only a very modest gap between the two properties. When the tree in the front garden of No 168 is in leaf, this largely screens the existing boundary between the two properties; however, it is not clear that it has or would have the same screening effect during the winter months. Furthermore, there can be no certainty that the tree would be retained, particularly as it is outside the control of the Appellant, and within the neighbour’s garden. I am not therefore satisfied that weight can be placed on the existence of the tree to screen the development. As a result of the proposed two storey extension, the remaining gap would be unacceptably tight between the two properties and would result in a terracing effect that would be out of character with the predominant pattern of development in the immediate locality. 9. I have taken into account that permission was granted for a two storey side extension under the Council’s ref: DC/09/071045/FT but, based on the information before me, not commenced in the required timescales. Moreover, the planning policy position has changed since that permission was granted some considerable number of years ago, and it does not persuade me that planning permission should now be granted for the proposal before me. 10. Although the proposed single storey front extension would be relatively small in depth and scale, it would appear as an awkward addition at the front of the property, particularly in relation to the existing front bay. It would not appear as an integrated part of the property, but, given its siting and projection, an overly prominent and ungainly addition. 11. Taken on its own, I consider that a proportionately scaled and well-designed first floor rear extension would be appropriate to step up from the extended ground floor towards the extended roof form and therefore help to unify the extended building. However, the scheme is presented as one proposal and I do not consider that it would be possible to seek to disaggregate it into its component elements. 12. Taking all the proposed extensions together, including the extensions already undertaken, the resultant development would result in a very bulky form of built form which would be visually discordant and overwhelm the scale and massing and the proportions of the existing property. It would, taken all together, present a very disjointed overall composition which would appear visually intrusive in the street scene. 13. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. This would conflict with Policies QD7 and QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025), the Appeal Decision 6011788 3 Council’s Alterations and Extensions SPD (2019) and the Crofton Park and Honor Oak Neighbourhood Plan (2022) and the Framework, and in particular National decision-making policy DP3, all of which, amongst other matters, seek for a high standard of design which respects the local context. Other Considerations 14. The Council’s reason for refusal related solely to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the local area. In respect of the Officer’s report on the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours, the findings are not clear. However, from my site visit and all the information before me, given the siting of the proposed extensions in relation to neighbouring properties and taking account of the position of their windows, I do not consider that the proposed development would materially harm the living conditions of the immediate neighbours, with particular regard to light, outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy. However, my finding in this regard does not outweigh the conclusion I have reached in respect of my main issue. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposals conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations that would outweigh that conflict, including the Framework. The appeal is therefore dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR