Construction of a front porch and single-storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2026 By SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6014022 30 Horncastle Road, Lewisham, London SE12 9LA • 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 Cenap against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application Ref is DC/25/142452. • The development proposed is construction of a front porch and single-storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a front porch and single-storey front extension at 30 Horncastle Road, Lewisham, London SE12 9LA in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference DC/25/142452, and the plans submitted with it, 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 the following approved plans: 2528_01-00, 2528_02-01, 2528_02-02. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. However, I am satisfied that the policy approach relevant to this appeal has not fundamentally changed and that no party has been prejudiced by its publication. Accordingly, I have had regard to the current version of the Framework in reaching my decision. 3. I have used in the banner heading above the description of development given on the Council’s decision notice, removing words that are not development, as this most accurately identifies the proposal. This is an administrative clarification that does not alter the substance of the appeal, and no party would be prejudiced. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision 6014022 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling within a short row of dwellings in a predominantly residential area. The row is positioned on a bend in the road and, as a result, the appeal property does not align with the adjoining terrace to the west. The dwelling appears to have been extended to the side, while alterations to the front elevations of adjacent dwellings, including porches, have disrupted some of the original symmetry of the group. Nevertheless, a degree of coherence remains through the consistent roof forms and profile and the rhythm of the projecting bays. 6. The wider street comprises terraced and semi-detached dwellings of broadly comparable scale, a number of which have been altered or extended, including through additions to their front elevations, canopies and porches. Consequently, while elements of the original architectural form and rhythm remain evident, the street scene is not wholly uniform. 7. The proposal comprises a front porch addition together with a single-storey extension forward of the existing garage. The porch would project approximately 1 metre from the principal elevation, with the front extension brought forward broadly in line with it. The existing garage door would be replaced with a window and the roof canopy across the front of the property would be raised. The proposed development would be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling. 8. The Council raises no objection to the proposed porch. The Officer's Report finds that its limited scale, matching materials and subordinate relationship to the dwelling would ensure that it would not appear visually intrusive or disrupt the character of the dwelling or area. I see no evidence to disagree with that assessment. 9. The Council considers that the front extension would disrupt the symmetry of the terrace and that, together with the raised canopy, would appear incongruous and visually intrusive. The Council's Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (the SPD) advises that front extensions are rarely desirable as they can unbalance a building, create undue prominence or disrupt the continuity of a terrace or group. However, the SPD is guidance, and the proposal must be assessed having regard to the particular characteristics of the site and its specific effects on the host dwelling and surrounding area. 10. In this case, the existing garage already projects forward of the principal elevation, broadly reflecting the projection of the ground and first-floor bay features. The proposed extension would bring the building line further forward to align with the proposed porch, which the Council considers acceptable. This would create a coherent single-storey element across the frontage. Its limited scale and alignment with the porch would also reduce its prominence, particularly in views from the east and alongside the use of matching materials ensures it remains subordinate to the main dwelling. 11. I acknowledge that the proposal would alter the symmetry of the terrace to some degree. However, the appeal property is at its western end and the adjoining terrace beyond is on a different alignment due to the bend in the road. Consequently, the extension would not interrupt a continuous building line or materially disrupt the wider rhythm of development within the street. Furthermore, the existing first-floor projecting bay would remain prominent above the extension Appeal Decision 6014022 3 and the relatively limited increase in the height of the canopy would not materially alter the established form or appearance of the terrace. I therefore do not share the Council's view that the proposal would be visually intrusive or incongruous. 12. Although front extensions are not characteristic of the immediate vicinity, the proposal would be read in the context of a wider street scene containing a variety of alterations and extensions to dwellings, including additions to their front elevations. In this context, the proposal would represent a modest domestic alteration that would not appear unduly prominent or incongruous. 13. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan - An Open Lewisham as part of an Open London (2025), which amongst other things, seek to deliver design that would not adversely affect the architectural integrity of buildings. For the same reason, the proposal accords with overall design objectives of the SPD. Other Matters 14. The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council's handling of the application. However, these matters do not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the proposal, and I have therefore not considered them further. Conditions 15. I have considered the tests of Policy DM6 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. A condition relating to materials is also reasonable and necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR