Lower-ground-floor rear extension at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, London SE10

What was proposed

The application sought a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations.

“The Committee is requested to refuse planning permission for the following proposal: “Construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a terraced dwelling within a locally listed group, the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area and its Article 4 Direction area.

“Includes the Ashburnham Arms (No. 25) which references the Ashburnhams, the landowning family who developed the area known as the Ashburnham Triangle (now a conservation area). The family’s coat of arms is illustrated on the pub sign. Built between 1851-1855 at the same time as most of the street, forms an integral part of the Grove’s townscape in terms of scale, design and materials and is a cherished local landmark.”

“The application site is also located within the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Article 4 Direction is in place here.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusing permission because the application was considered unacceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

“The application has been called into the Local Planning Committee by Cllr. Aidan Smith in the case that this application is recommended for refusal under delegated powers.”

“The application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in Appendix 2 below.”

Officer report

Responses to the proposal

The application received two objections and no supporting or neutral comments.

“Public Consultation Number in support 0 Number of neutral comments 0 Number of objections 2”

Officer report

What the applicants said

The applicants said the extension would provide practical family space, address earlier design concerns and avoid harm to the building, conservation area and neighbours.

What members considered

Members discussed the combined depth, permitted development, the revised design, the locally listed building and whether a site visit was needed.

“In response to Members questions the applicants who explaining that they had submitted two applications rather than a combined one as there were areas that Planning Officers agreed and to address the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in terms of the appearance, specifically the additional bulk and weight of the extension and the concern that, even if it mirrored their neighbours’ property, it would appear incongruous within the terrace.”

“At the request of Members, the Senior Principal Planning Officer clarified that a three-metre extension from the outrigger would be considered as permitted development if built on its own. However, it was not considered permitted development as part of the overall proposed scheme.”

Minutes