Appeal 3285219

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for an infill single storey rear extension, existing side extension front enlargement and first storey side/rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/1473/HOT, dated 26 April 2021, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have taken the applicant names from the application form as it has been clarified that there was an error on the appeal form. I have used the description of development from the decision notice and appeal form as this includes reference to the first-floor rear extension.

Although the Council questioned the accuracy of the existing plans, having visited the site and from the other information provided this has not affected my assessment of the proposed scheme.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed side extension would project beyond the front elevation contrary to what is considered usually desirable in the SPD1. However, it would not project much further than the existing bay window, is relatively narrow and would largely replicate the other end of terrace property at [address] (No 18). 1

Therefore, rather than being obtrusive, it would bring some symmetry to the row. Although there is no step in the ridge line, the proposed extension would retain and continue the hipped roof appearance that is characteristic of the area. It would be obviously subordinate to and integrate with the original dwelling.

The appeal property already abuts the neighbouring one at ground floor level. Although not to the extent considered normally acceptable by the SPD, the proposed first-floor would be stepped in from the side boundary. The gap that would remain at first floor level in combination with the first-floor set in of the adjacent property would allow views through and avoid a terracing effect or the extension becoming over dominant.

The first-floor rear extension would not be significantly greater than half the width of the original dwelling as the SPD requires. Moreover, it would be set in from both side boundaries and be of a limited depth. Along with having a ridge line clearly lower than the main one, these factors would prevent it from overwhelming the original dwelling.

The existing ground floor rear extension stretches across much of the rear elevation and a flat roof is already present at the dwelling. Consequently, the limited infill proposed would assimilate into the existing property.

Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policy LP1 of the Local Plan2 where it requires proposals to be compatible with local character. While there would be technical breaches, the scheme would accord with SPD aims to avoid visual confusion in terms of style and materials.

As Policy LP8 of the Local Plan relates to living conditions, it weighs neither for nor against the proposal in relation to the main issue.

I do not have full details of the previous applications at the site. Nonetheless, I have found the proposal would not result in harm. That other extensions in the road were approved prior to the current development plan does not alter that they now form part of the existing context that the appeal proposal would be viewed in. In any event, I have considered the proposal on its own individual merits.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed one requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty.

To protect the character and appearance of the area a condition regarding the external materials is imposed. Conditions preventing the use of the roof area and introduction of new windows in the side elevations are necessary to protect living conditions of adjacent properties. Finally, a requirement to follow the submitted fire safety strategy is necessary to ensure appropriate standards are met. 2 London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan

For the reasons given, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions in the schedule below.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 508/C/01, 508/C/02, 508/C/03, 508/C/04; and 508/C/05.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building unless otherwise stated on the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained as such.

The roof area of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area nor shall any access be formed thereto.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or opening other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the first-floor side elevations of the property.

Prior to the beneficial use of the development hereby approved measures within the [name] 508 and [name] 508/C/06 shall be fully implemented and retained as such thereafter.