35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 June 2025 by H Marriott MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 June 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/W/25/3360338 35 Ceres Road, Plumstead, Greenwich SE18 1HR • 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 Ms Amandipkaur Singh against the decision of Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 24/3485/F. • The development proposed is for the retrospective erection of ground floor rear extension and an outbuilding and change of use from a single dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) into a 5-bed HMO (Use Class C4) with a maximum occupancy of 5 persons. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form confirms that the development proposed has commenced. I saw on my site visit that a ground floor rear extension and an outbuilding have been constructed. I also saw that the building was in use as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO), although Bedroom 2 as identified on the proposed plans, was in use as a living room when I visited the site. I have in any event determined the appeal on the plans before me. 3.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The appellant has indicated a willingness to amend the proposed plans to change Bedroom 2 to an office/hobby room. However, the proposal is for a 5-bed HMO and the appeal process should not be used to advance a scheme. If the appellant considers that amending the proposals would overcome the concerns of the Council, a fresh planning application could be submitted. 4. The Council’s report accompanying its decision, raises no objection to the outbuilding which forms part of the appeal proposal. It is also clear that the term ‘overbearing’ referred to in its decision notice is linked to its concerns regarding the design and appearance of the rear extension. I have defined the main issues on this basis. Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • whether the development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of Bedroom 2 with particular regard to light and outlook; and • the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/25/3360338 Reasons Living conditions for future occupiers 6. Number 35 Ceres Road (No 35) is a mid-terrace dwelling located on a residential street. It contains a yard area to its rear and a two-storey outrigger adjoined to a neighbouring outrigger at 33 Ceres Road. The boundaries of the yard area comprise a mixture of wall and or/close boarded fencing. 7. The appeal proposal includes a single-storey rear extension consisting of two parts, an extension located to the side of the outrigger and its shared boundary with 37 Ceres Road (the infill extension) and a flat roof extension to the rear of the infill extension (the rear extension). 8. The back wall of the infill extension is located a short distance away from a single window that would serve Bedroom 2. From my own observations on site, this window has a bleak and limited outlook towards this wall despite its white colour finish. Furthermore, due to its close proximity, this wall overshadows and restricts both daylight and sunlight to this room. Taken together, these factors would result in a poor-quality living environment for the occupier of this room.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Whilst the appellant has inserted a larger window that allows for limited views above the roof of the infill extension and for some light to penetrate the room, this does not sufficiently mitigate the harm identified. 9. Whilst the HMO contains a communal kitchen/dining area and yard area, there would be no other communal space. As the occupiers of the HMO would likely be unrelated and living separately, they would likely desire their own private space for relaxing away from other occupiers. As a consequence, the use of the room as a bedroom within an HMO would be more intensive than use as a room within a dwellinghouse occupied by a single household. Therefore, even though the Council have confirmed that the infill extension may be lawful, this does not represent a fall back for use of the room as a bedroom within an HMO and does not therefore justify the development proposed. 10. I conclude that the development would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of Bedroom 2 with particular regard to light and outlook.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision In this regard, it would be contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policy H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) (CS) which require development proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, to provide comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose, to provide sufficient daylight and sunlight whilst avoiding overshadowing and the achievement of high-quality housing design and an integrated environment. 11. There would also be conflict with the guidance contained within the Royal Borough of Greenwich Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (2019) which require all habitable rooms to have an adequate level of natural light. 12. The Council’s decision also refers to Policy DH1 of the CS. However, this primarily relates to design, and I therefore find no particular conflict with this policy in respect of this main issue. Even so, this does not overcome the conflict with the other policies of the development plan set out above. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/25/3360338 Character and appearance 13. The buildings along Ceres Road have distinctive bay windows and chimneys and have similar sized enclosed front and rear garden/yard areas. Many have been altered, extended and/or have outbuildings to their rear. Whilst brick facades and tiled roof are prevalent, there are also examples of buildings with render or pebbledash facades. Despite this variety, the terraces along Ceres Road provide an overall consistency in development rhythm including plot size. 14. The appellant indicates that the rear extension is lawful. Whilst the Council have confirmed that they are currently dealing with an application for a lawful development certificate in this regard, I have not been advised of its outcome. Even so, the rear extension would not be visible from Ceres Road. Whilst it would be visible from neighbouring dwellings, its footprint would be less than half the width of the main part of No 35 and its single storey height reduces its overall bulk, ensuring it is subordinate in scale. Moreover, its white coloured render finish is in keeping with the rest of the rear elevation of No 35. 15.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The depth of the rear extension combined with the depth of the infill extension would exceed the 3.6 metre projection from the rear typically considered appropriate in the Royal Borough of Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD). However, the SPD also states that projections beyond this can be considered for certain typologies where neighbourly amenity is not compromised. The Council have not raised any concerns with regards to the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As such, I find no conflict with the guidance of the SPD in this respect. 16. I conclude that the extension has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it would comply with Policy D3 of the LP and Policies DHI and DH(a) of the CS which require buildings to be of a high-quality design, to be limited to a scale and design appropriate to the locality and to positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape. Other Matters 17. It is acknowledged that the No 35 is located close to Plumstead High Street.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Moreover, the Council have not raised concerns in relation to the principle of a HMO in this location, parking provision, space standards, waste provision or cycle storage. Even so, this does not overcome the harm identified with respect to the living conditions for the future occupiers of Bedroom 2. Conclusion 18. While the development is acceptable with regards to character and appearance, I have found that it would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. In that regard, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

35 Ceres Road, LONDON, SE18 1HR — Royal Borough of Greenwich — H Marriott INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3