24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2024 by K Savage BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/W/23/3332283 24 Southspring, Avery Hill, Greenwich DA15 8EA • 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 Hekuran Vata against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application reference is 23/2495/F. • The development proposed is erection of self-contained two bedroom dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023. The parts most relevant to the appeal have not substantively changed from the previous iteration. Consequently, this does not alter the main parties’ cases and it is not necessary to seek further comments. References hereafter are to the December 2023 version. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The appeal relates to an end-of-terrace residential dwelling standing at the corner of Southspring and Radfield Way. Unlike the other dwellings standing on the corners of the junction which have triangular shaped plots, the appeal site benefits from a larger plot, with the plot of the adjacent dwelling at 3 Radfield Way correspondingly smaller in size. The plans show a garage and summerhouse in this space to the side of the dwelling. The proposed detached dwelling would replace these outbuildings. 5. The immediate area is characterised by consistent short terraces or semi- detached pairs of dwellings with strong building lines that follow the curve of the road. It is a typical suburban layout with dwellings set back behind short front gardens and an absence of development at the street corners, where a sense of spaciousness is maintained and greenery has established in many cases. 6. The proposed dwelling would match the two storey height and red brick facades of neighbouring dwellings. However, it would represent an isolated example of a detached dwelling that would fail to reflect the surrounding pattern.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision It would also represent an uncharacteristic infilling at the street corner which is not seen on any of the other three corners of the junction or elsewhere https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision It would also represent an uncharacteristic infilling at the street corner which is not seen on any of the other three corners of the junction or elsewhere https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3332283 in the immediate surroundings, where I saw that development has been limited to side extensions or single storey outbuildings which do not have the same infilling effect or loss of openness on the corner that the appeal proposal would have. 7. In terms of detailed design, the dwelling would be noticeably narrower in width than adjacent dwellings and it would stand at an angle compared to the adjacent dwelling at No 24. Whilst this may be an attempt to follow the slight curve of the street, the angle appears overly pronounced and the inclusion of a front porch would add to the sense of the dwelling standing awkwardly forward of, and ill-aligned with, the prevailing building line. The side elevation of the dwelling would also fail to align with the building line on Radfield Way, further adding to its incongruous form. 8. This layout appears influenced, at least in part, by the constraints of the site at the rear, where the dwelling would stand very close to the boundary with 3 Radfield Way. I also saw on site that the approved side extension to No 24 appears to have been constructed. Consequently, the gap between No 24 and the proposed dwelling would be very tight.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision This would further expose the discordant angle of the dwelling and, viewed from both streets, the dwelling would appear squeezed onto the site in a cramped manner that would fail to reflect the space which exists around neighbouring dwellings and exemplifies the suburban character, particularly at the corner properties. 9. The appellant refers to support in the Framework for efficient re-use of sites, and that the land presently makes a poor contribution to the character of the area. However, the Framework also seeks high quality design, which I have found would not be delivered by this proposal. Moreover, the condition of the land could be addressed separately and housing is not the only route to improving its appearance. 10. The appellant refers to other developments in the area. That at Greenhithe Close bears little relation to the appeal scheme in form or setting, being on a strip of underused land to the rear of existing development and not part of an established streetscene.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The developments at 12 and 14 Southspring both involve semi-detached dwellings which extend the respective terraces in a matching form that respects the prevailing pattern and retains the triangular site shape and degree of openness to the street corners. I do not regard these other schemes as comparable to the proposal before me and afford them little weight as a result. 11. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (March 2021) and Policies H(c) and DH1 of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Adopted Core Strategy (with Detailed Policies) (July 2014), which together require high quality new development that positively contributes to the improvement of the built environment, taking account of existing townscapes, layout, spatial character, topography, scale and massing. These policies are consistent with the aspirations for high quality design set out in the Framework. 12. Policy DH(a) cited on the Council’s decision notice relates to residential extensions and so is not strictly applicable to the appeal proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3332283 Other Matters 13. The Council did not refuse the application in terms of the effects on neighbours’ living conditions or highway safety. Whilst I note some comments in these respects from interested parties, I do not have any substantive evidence to reach a different view from the Council, nor did my observations on site identify any potential harm in these matters. Conclusion 14. The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, with supply indicated to be just 2.8 years. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. 15. The proposal would deliver an additional dwelling in an accessible location at a time when the Council is falling well short of demonstrating a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites, a benefit weighing strongly in favour of the proposal in the circumstances. There would also be modest benefits in terms of the economic activity generated in the construction of the dwelling and subsequently by occupants in patronising local businesses. 16.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Set against this, I have found that the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This results in conflict with the development plan and the clear guidance of the Framework that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Therefore, I afford significant weight to this conflict. 17. Overall, in the context of paragraph 11, the adverse impacts associated with granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when considered against the policies of the Framework, taken as a whole. Consequently, the Framework does not indicate that permission should be forthcoming, and there are no other material considerations that would justify a decision being made other than in accordance with the development plan. 18. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

24 Southspring, SIDCUP, DA15 8EA — Royal Borough of Greenwich — K Savage INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3