Appeal 3309282

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two storey, semi-detached house located at the end of [address]. There is a wide space to the side of the property which adjoins the rear garden of No.[address].

All the properties in [address] are semi-detached with a mixture of hipped and gabled roof forms. The character of the road is derived from the pattern and cohesion of the architecture and the materials of red brick and tile hanging to the bays. A large proportion of the properties have been extended to the side including the other half of the semi, No.39, which has a full height side extension with a half-hipped roof.

The proposed side extension would be wider than that of its neighbour’s, although space would still remain to the side of the property. The extension would also slightly project to the rear with a gable end and a large box style dormer added to the original roof. [name].39, the design would not replicate the bay windows of the host property, however other extensions in the road generally do not, and there is limited consistency where both sides of the semi-detached pairs have been extended. Nonetheless, these existing extensions match in terms of materials, and the proportions or subservient form to maintain the original property as the predominant element.

I acknowledge that there are different approaches to extensions and that the guidelines in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document1 (SPD) are examples to be applied flexibly based on the site context. However, primarily both the SPD and the Hampton Village Planning Guidance2 seek to maintain and enhance the distinctive local character of the area. As a guiding principle the SPD explains that the external appearance of any extension must be carefully designed in order to avoid the visual confusion that can result when the style and materials of the original house are ignored.

The proposed alterations include several elements which do not reflect the form of the host property and/or exceed the SPD guidelines. For example, the width of the extension, the fenestration which includes two Juliet balconies, the scale and position of the dormer, and the proposed materials. I accept that individually some of these features are found in the surrounding area. However, collectively they would have a dominating effect, significantly changing the appearance of the appeal property which would further unbalance the semi-detached pair and disrupt the prevailing character of [address]. Additionally, due to its location the property is more noticeable and is seen in views from [address]. As a result of the proposal, a rendered side extension which would be out of keeping with the appearance of the rest of the road, would effectively demark the entrance to [address].

The appellant advises that the dormer window is subject to a Lawful Development Certificate and represents a fallback. However, that is just one element of the proposal, and it is the cumulative impact of the alterations which amounts to a development which would not appear subordinate and unsympathetic to the appearance of the property. This would also be the position if the dormer window had already been implemented and therefore does not alter my findings.

Overall, the combined extent and form of the alterations would dominate the host property and fail to harmonise with the prevailing character of the area. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, 2018, the SPD and the Hampton Village Planning Guidance. Together these aim to ensure that development promotes a high standard of design, respects and enhances local character, and is not visually intrusive.

For the reasons set out and having regards to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.