Case 3257550

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL

Royal Borough of Greenwich — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
2 July 2021
Authority
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Inspector
Ollerenshaw M
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Unknown
Development type
Householder developments
Appellant
c/o Building Design & Services Ltd
Agent
J Butterworth Planning
LPA reference
20/0707/F
ONS LPA code
E09000011
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
27 October 2020

Summary AI

The appeal was allowed due to the dormers being of an appropriate scale and not harming the character and appearance of the host property or surrounding area. The development was found to be in accordance with the terms of the application and subject to a condition.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 7 June 2021 by Mark Ollerenshaw BSc (Hons) MTPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 July 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/W/20/3257550 79 Eastcombe Avenue, Charlton SE7 7LL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Peter Dhillon, c/o Building Design & Services Ltd against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref 20/0707/F, dated 25 February 2020, was refused by notice dated 26 June 2020. • The development proposed is described as “addition of rear dormers for development granted under planning ref: 17/1441/F. Ref: 1062536“. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “addition of rear dormers for development granted under planning ref: 17/1441/F. Ref 1062536” at 79 Eastcombe Avenue, Charlton SE7 7LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/0707/F, dated 25 February 2020, and subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted relates to approved plans, reference Lp- 00L and ER 1912/1B. Procedural Matters 2.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision It was clear from my site visit that the development has been carried out. I have considered the appeal scheme accordingly. 3. The London Plan March 2021 was published subsequent to the submission of the appeal and replaces the London Plan 2016. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the relevance of this to the appeal. I have had regard to any comments received and the new London Plan in my decision. Main Issue 4. The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal building is a part two and part three storey modern property in a residential area. It is part of a row on the western side of Eastcombe Avenue and contains six apartments. The design of the building incorporates a large three storey pitched roof outrigger to the rear. The surrounding area comprises mainly two storey terraced properties. A common feature being rear outriggers. Along this stretch of Eastcombe Avenue the rear elevations of properties are not readily visible, other than when in their rear gardens. This is true of the appeal site itself. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/20/3257550 6. The Council's Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance (SPD) states that dormer extensions should be small scale and the windows should be of an appropriate design considering the other windows in the house, and rear dormer extensions of an appropriate scale are acceptable. The SPD goes on to advise that full width dormer extensions will be discouraged. 7. Even so, the proposed dormers do not extend across the full width of the roof slope as they are set in from either end of the building with a large gap in between. They are also set well back from, and above, the eaves, and are not any higher than the existing main ridge of the building. Given these factors, I consider that the dormers are of an appropriate scale and do not dominate the rear roof slope of the property. Furthermore, the dormers have been constructed in materials to match the appearance of the roof of the property. 8. Rear dormer extensions are not an uncommon feature to properties on Eastcombe Avenue or the surrounding area generally. Two such examples are the dormers to the rear of Nos 31 and 33 Bramshot Avenue to the south, which face in the direction of the appeal site.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Whilst many of the dormers in the area may have been constructed under permitted development rights, they do nevertheless form part of the character and appearance of the area. 9. The dormers are not visible from Eastcombe Avenue due to their siting on the rear roof slope. Viewed from the rear gardens of the appeal property, the dormers are barely discernible due to their height above ground level and position behind the rear walls of the projecting outrigger, which remains the dominant element at the rear of the property. Given the position of the property relative to neighbouring buildings, and the established trees to the rear of the site, the dormers are not prominent from surrounding areas. Trees also largely screen the development from more distant views to the west, including from the A102. 10. With the above in mind, the development is not harmful to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. I therefore find no conflict with Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (adopted in July 2014), or the aims of the Council's SPD.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Amongst other things, these require residential extensions to be of a scale and design appropriate to the character of the building and the surrounding area. In addition, I find no conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, which, amongst other matters, require development to respond positively to local distinctiveness and seek to achieve high quality design. Conditions 11. I have had regard to the Council’s suggested conditions. As the development has already taken place, conditions relating to the standard implementation period, and use of matching materials, are unnecessary. I have however, for clarity and enforceability, set out the approved plans. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the stated condition. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/20/3257550

Page 3 · Chunk 6 INSPECTOR

79 Eastcombe Avenue, LONDON, SE7 7LL — Royal Borough of Greenwich — INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
For appellant
¶10

The dormers were deemed to be of an appropriate scale and did not dominate the rear roof slope of the property. They were also found to be in materials that matched the appearance of the roof and were not visible from the front of the property.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (adopted in July 2014)
Determinative
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 July 2021 under the Open Government Licence.