At HEAL Planning & Developments, we helped secure planning permission at appeal for a substantial single-storey wrap-around extension in Greenwich after the original application was refused by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
The proposal involved demolishing an existing rear extension and constructing a single-storey front, side and rear extension to a semi-detached property. The scheme was intended to provide additional and improved living accommodation for the applicant and their family.
Greenwich Council refused planning permission on 9 February.
The Council considered that the combined extension, because of its size, bulk, scale and detailed design, would appear bulky and unsympathetic and would harm the character of the existing property and surrounding area.
A second reason for refusal related to alleged inaccuracies within the submitted drawings, with the Council arguing that the plans did not provide a sufficiently reliable representation of the proposed development.
However, the officer’s report also acknowledged several important points.
The proposed front extension was considered acceptable in isolation, while officers accepted that the front and side elements reflected similar development at the adjoining property and would not appear alien within the area.
There were also no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring living conditions, and no objections were received from neighbouring properties.
Our appeal focused on demonstrating that the extension, when considered as a whole, represented a proportionate addition within a street already characterised by a variety of extensions and roof alterations.
Of particular relevance was the adjoining property at number 101, which already featured front, side and rear additions.
We argued that the proposed development would be similar in scale and arrangement, helping to create a more balanced relationship between the pair of semi-detached properties.
We also demonstrated that the extension would remain subordinate to the original two-storey house. It would be single-storey, use matching materials and retain the prominence of the property’s distinctive bay windows.
The rear extension would have limited visibility from the street, while its roof design and existing vegetation would further reduce its visual prominence.
The Council’s concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted drawings were also addressed as part of the appeal.
Following a site visit on 12 May, the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal on 16 June and granted planning permission.
The Inspector recognised that the surrounding area had a varied character, including hip-to-gable extensions, rear dormers and both single and two-storey side extensions incorporating different roof forms.
Importantly, the Inspector observed that the adjoining property already contained deeper and more extensive additions, meaning the pair of semi-detached houses appeared somewhat unbalanced in their existing form.
Although aspects of the proposal did not follow every recommendation within the Council’s design guidance, the Inspector concluded that the extension would be similar in scale and design to the additions at the neighbouring property.
Its modest height, matching materials and limited visibility meant the development would remain a proportionate and sympathetic addition.
The Inspector also concluded that the front and side extensions would not overwhelm the original property or undermine the prominence of its bay windows.
The Council’s second reason for refusal was also given limited weight by the Inspector.
The drawings did not appear to contain the inaccuracies described by the Council. Furthermore, the Inspector noted that if some drawn dimensions were smaller than the written measurements, the result would simply be a smaller extension with less visual impact.
The proposed patio paving was also not considered sufficient reason to withhold planning permission.
Overall, the Inspector concluded that the development would not harm the character or appearance of the property or surrounding area.
Planning permission was granted subject to two conditions covering the standard three-year commencement period and compliance with the approved plans.
There was just over four months between Greenwich Council’s refusal and the successful planning appeal decision.
This case demonstrates why a planning refusal does not necessarily have to be the end of the road.
While the Council considered the development a bulky and unsympathetic extension supported by unreliable drawings, the appeal successfully demonstrated that it represented a proportionate addition that responded positively to the neighbouring property and the varied character of the surrounding street.
We offer a fully managed planning appeal service, reviewing the decision notice, planning officer’s report and supporting documents before preparing a robust appeal case.
We monitor deadlines and manage the appeal process through to the Inspector’s final decision, ensuring the reasons for refusal are addressed clearly and directly.
If you’ve had a house extension or householder planning application refused and are considering a planning appeal, we’d be happy to help.
Complete our quick enquiry form at www.planningappealsuk.com to arrange a Free No Obligation Telephone Consultation and discuss your potential options and routes forward.
Front, Side and Rear Extension Householder Planning Appeal Greenwich Appeal
Complete the form below to claim your Free No Obligation planning appeal consultation.
Covering all of England and Wales. Start your planning appeal today, without delay! Call us on 01743 369911
