A Greenwich infill appeal has allowed two new homes behind a row of south-east London houses after the Planning Inspectorate rejected the council’s objections about privacy and protected species. The approved scheme is designed without residents’ car parking.
Inspector John Morrison allowed appeal 6009351 on 27 October 2026 for land behind Wyndcliff Road in Charlton. The appeal followed the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s refusal of application 25/1264/F. The site would be reached by an existing private pedestrian route beside a house on Wyndcliff Road.
The Greenwich infill appeal is particularly useful because it examines separation distances below those suggested by council design guidance, ecological surveys outside peak season and the August 2026 changes to biodiversity net gain exemptions. None of those points should be turned into a general exemption for other sites.
What the Greenwich infill appeal proposed
The two houses would occupy land enclosed by the rear gardens of terraced properties on Wyndcliff Road, Eastcombe Avenue and Sandtoft Road. That means new first-floor windows and the relationship with existing neighbours were the central planning questions, rather than whether a further house could simply be fitted into the plot.
The proposal was car-free, with pedestrian access from Wyndcliff Road. The Inspector’s representative, Appeal Planning Officer Finlay Bradford, undertook the site visit and recommended approval. Mr Morrison subsequently adopted that report and allowed the appeal subject to conditions.
Greenwich had raised the effect on protected species and residential amenity. The Greenwich infill appeal therefore turned on evidence about what neighbours would actually experience, rather than a fixed arithmetic rule requiring every pair of buildings to meet the same distance.
Why the suggested separation distances were not decisive
The proposed two-storey elements would be placed towards the centre of the backland plot. The approximate distance to the rear elevations on Sandtoft Road was 15 to 20 metres. The council was concerned about outlook and views into neighbouring gardens from bedroom windows.
The appeal report acknowledged that the separation fell below distances in the council’s Urban Design Guide supplementary planning document. Crucially, it said these were not mandatory requirements
. The established layout of terraces, oblique viewing angles and existing mutual overlooking all mattered when applying the guidance.
Two bedroom windows facing generally towards Sandtoft Road would introduce side views, rather than direct lines towards principal rear windows. Another window gave some views towards Wyndcliff Road gardens, but the report considered the impact acceptable in this built-up setting.
For the Greenwich infill appeal, that contextual analysis outweighed the raw distance shortfall. It does not mean a 15-metre separation is always appropriate for another backland scheme. The position of windows, ground levels, design and previous overlooking remain material considerations. Planning Geek’s guide to material planning considerations explains how these issues fit into an application decision.
Daylight and sunlight evidence supported the homes
Daylight and sunlight assessments predicted some reduction in light reaching neighbouring rooms and gardens. However, the windows and outdoor areas assessed would remain within the relevant guidance, according to the report.
Not every surrounding property had been assessed individually. The report regarded other properties as sufficiently comparable in their position and distance to rely on the submitted findings. It did not accept that those missing individual assessments made the overall evidence unreliable.
The Greenwich infill appeal shows the value of evidence proportionate to the likely impact. A report that acknowledges measurable change can still support permission where the resulting living conditions remain acceptable. The assessment was specific to this dense urban block, not a guarantee that every rear-garden infill scheme will pass.
An out-of-season ecological appraisal was accepted
The preliminary ecological appraisal was completed outside peak survey periods, but its approach concentrated on the physical habitat features and suitability for protected species. The site walkover identified no bat roosting features, badger activity or suitable reptile habitat.
Nesting birds were recorded, and habitat for hedgehogs was rated moderately suitable. The report nevertheless concluded that the appraisal provided adequate information about likely effects and that the proposed measures could address them. The council’s concerns had not demonstrated a decisive evidence gap.
That was an evidential finding, not a ruling that seasonal surveys are never necessary. A site with different habitats, records or proposed works could warrant additional surveys. Planning Geek’s ecological appraisal guide explains when a preliminary appraisal needs more detailed investigation.
The 2026 biodiversity net gain change was not retrospective
The Inspector’s report noted that a new exemption for qualifying developments of 0.2 hectares or less started on 6 August 2026. The exemption applies to planning applications submitted on or after that date, provided the development would not affect an on-site priority habitat.
The Greenwich application was assessed on the basis that the parties could secure at least 10 per cent biodiversity net gain through an appropriate plan, including on-site and off-site measures. The decision did not apply the later small-site exemption to an earlier application.
That distinction is central to the Greenwich infill appeal. The decision date was October 2026, but the relevant transition rule turned on the application date, not the day the Inspector signed the decision. The Government’s current exemptions guidance confirms both the 0.2-hectare threshold and its commencement date.
Car-free development and conditions mattered
The Inspector’s adopted report considered the location sustainable for walking and public transport, with the site in a controlled parking zone. The council retained control over parking permit applications. The Inspector did not impose an attempted ban on residents applying for permits, regarding that as unsuitable for a land-use condition.
A drainage strategy still needed missing technical details. Rather than treating those as fundamental unknowns, the report accepted they could be obtained by a condition before commencement. Other conditions dealt with construction management, accessible accommodation, external materials, landscaping, tree protection, lighting and waste and cycle storage.
The permitted development rights normally available for some householder extensions and roof works were restricted by condition in order to safeguard surrounding neighbours. Permission for two new houses was therefore not permission for whatever later enlargements an owner might wish to make.
The Greenwich infill appeal also rejected private restrictive covenants and speculative house-price effects as grounds for refusing the planning application. Planning permission does not extinguish private rights. Planning Geek’s restrictive covenant guidance explains that separate issue.
What Greenwich’s appeal decision means for similar sites
This result is useful for applicants and objectors because it separates genuine measurable harm from assumptions about backland development. Privacy concerns need to be tested against window positions and the existing pattern of views. Ecology needs a suitable appraisal, and any additional survey requirements depend on the evidence rather than the month alone.
It is equally important not to treat the permission as a blanket acceptance of minimal separation or car-free layouts. The Inspector approved this particular set of drawings and conditions for a particular urban site. The scheme still has technical matters to discharge before construction can start.
The outcome was an allowed section 78 planning appeal, not a court judgment. The approved development is two dwellings, not a wider or unrestricted permission for the whole backland parcel.
Decision and sources
The primary source is Planning Inspectorate appeal 6009351, allowed by Inspector John Morrison on 27 October 2026 following the report of Appeal Planning Officer Finlay Bradford. The brief quoted wording is Planning Inspectorate material reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments