Single-storey extension at the rear no more than 4 metres in height (measured externally from the natural ground level); and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse (measured externally) by over 3 but no more than 6 meters

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by L J O'Brien BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012063 16 Eastbrook Road, London, SE3 8BT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Nana Barfi-Sarpong against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 26/1429/PN1. • The development proposed is described as “a single-storey extension at the rear no more than 4 metres in height (measured externally from the natural ground level); and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse (measured externally) by over 3 but no more than 6 meters.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The development as applied for appears as I have set out in the banner heading above. However, in the interests of clarity, and as it better describes the proposal before me, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice rather than that found on the original application form. This document describes the development as “Prior Approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension which will extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 4.60m, for which the maximum height will be 3.67m and the height at the eaves will be 3.00m.” 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in August 2026, during the consideration of this appeal. Insofar as is directly relevant to the appeal, there are no substantive changes and no parties have been prejudiced as a result. Background and Main Issue 4. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. 5. While the Council refused prior approval due to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupants of No 18 Eastbrook Road, the conditions and limitations of Class A require that I consider the amenity of all adjoining premises as part of Appeal Decision 6012063 2 this appeal. Accordingly, I consider the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring premises. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling situated on a residential street. Prior Approval is sought for the construction of a single storey rear extension. 7. The proposed extension would run alongside the side boundary of the appeal property with the neighbouring dwelling at No 18 for around 4.6m at a height of approximately 3m at eaves level. The perceived height of the extension would be increased by the roof lantern atop the structure which would reach a height of around 3.6m. 8. The proposed extension would project a substantial distance from the rear of the property and the height would be significantly greater than the height of the existing boundary treatment which comprises a fence with vegetation projecting above it. A significant proportion of the extension would be visible above the existing fence line. The plans indicate that the elevation of the proposed extension which would abut the boundary with No 18 would be of a brick construction and would not contain any detailing or features to add visual relief to the massing and bulk of the wall. Due to its height and depth, the solid, imposing and featureless wall would appear as a visually dominant structure when viewed from the rear ground floor windows and rear garden area of the property at No 18. 9. Whilst I accept that the existing boundary treatment includes vegetation which projects above the height of the fence this, along with the fence, creates a relatively soft, semi-enclosed, boundary, which serves to define the space, offering privacy and containment without the hard visual barrier of a brick wall. Furthermore, vegetation such as this is of a more transient, temporary nature and differs in size throughout the year. The height of any vegetation can be easily controlled so as to ensure that it does not in and of itself have a harmful effect on the outlook from neighbouring properties. 10. In addition to the above, the property at No 18 also shares a side boundary with a building which appears to be a garage belonging to the property at No 20. The building at No 20 runs along the boundary for a considerable distance; creating an extensive, hard edge to this side of No 18’s rear garden area. The proposal would run along No 18’s other boundary and would, in combination with the existing building at No 20, have the effect of fully enclosing this part of the rear garden area at No 18. This high degree of enclosure would adversely affect the amenity of the occupiers of No 18 from which the proposal would appear as an overbearing and oppressive feature. 11. Though I have identified harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the outlook from No 18, the separation distances and specific circumstances on the site, such as the orientation of properties and the locations of windows, are such that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the levels of light reaching No 18 or any other nearby properties. For the same reasons, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on No 18 in respect of privacy or on other neighbouring properties in terms of outlook or privacy. Thus, I consider that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the amenity of the occupiers of other neighbouring properties surrounding the appeal site. Appeal Decision 6012063 3 12. Nevertheless, as set out above, I have found that the proposal would cause harm to the amenity of the occupiers of No 18 Eastbrook Road in respect of outlook. The proposed development would, therefore, fail to comply with the conditions and limitations as set out within the GPDO. Other Matters 13. I note that the appellant has made changes to previous schemes with the aim of overcoming the harm which was identified. I accept that the depth of the proposed extension has been reduced in the current proposal, the reduction, however, is minimal. The overall height to the eaves, however, is the same as that previously dismissed at appeal1 and the maximum height would be greater. Though the appeal scheme is indeed somewhat smaller I have found that it would, nevertheless, have an adverse impact on the outlook from the property at No 18 and create an oppressive sense of enclosure. 14. The appellant has referred to a proposal at 37 Riefield Road2 which they suggest confirms that the depth and height of the proposal before me is acceptable. However, though similarities may exist, each case must be determined on its own merits based on the specific circumstances at each site. These circumstances will rarely, if ever, be identical. The Inspector, in determining the appeal at 37 Riefield Road found that the conditions at that site, such as the existing boundary treatments and the arrangement of the properties, was such that no harm would be caused to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. My findings in respect of the appeal before me are different and the existence of other extensions in different contexts is not sufficient to justify the grant of planning permission. 15. I acknowledge that the appellant is concerned with the Council’s approach during the application process. However, such matters fall beyond the scope of my remit as the Inspector determining this appeal and should be explored through the Council’s own processes. I also appreciate that it was believed that positive pre- application advice had been given. However, such advice is given without prejudice and the specific details and design of the proposal is such that the Council ultimately reached a different view. 16. The information before me indicates that further applications at the appeal site which are said to include a garden annex amongst other things had been submitted or approved at the time the evidence was submitted. However, I have not been provided with recent, specific, information in this regard. The other schemes do not form part of the proposal before me and, as such, on the basis of the limited information before me, I have not considered these other schemes or their potential implications as part of my consideration of this appeal. 17. I have also noted a number of other issues raised; however, as this proposal is to be dismissed for other reasons and the other concerns expressed do not have a direct bearing on the main issue, it is not necessary for these to be explored further as part of this appeal. 1 Appeal Ref: 6003027 2 Appeal Ref 6002322 Appeal Decision 6012063 4 Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, the proposed development would fail to accord with the conditions set out within the GPDO and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J O'Brien INSPECTOR