Appeal 3315650

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/3058/HOT, dated 9 October 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set in a street showing typical suburban characteristics. It has been extended before with a side/rear, mainly flat roofed two storey extension, and another full width ground floor extension at the rear. The appellant wishes to extend the bathroom on the first floor at the rear.

The proposed development is described as ‘very small’ in the grounds of appeal. The Council agrees that, in itself, the proposal could possibly be described in these terms, but considers it should be assessed in the context of the extensions already carried out to the house and to those already approved or consented1.

On this basis, the Council considers that the cumulative effect of this and the other extensions would materially affect the character and appearance of the dwelling at the rear to its detriment, it would represent overdevelopment and the proposal would breach the guidance contained in its SPD2 that ‘two storey 1 The appellant points out that these are already built. 2 Supplementary Planning Document – [name] and [name] side and rear extensions should not be greater than half the width of the original building, to ensure the extension does not over-dominate the building’s original scale and character’.

I understand the Council’s points, but do not share its view. To my mind, the extension sought can properly be described as small and would fit in neatly within the gap between the existing flat roof first floor extension and the wide bedroom bay window which occupies the original wall of the dwelling at the rear. Little remains of the original character of the dwelling at the rear because of the alterations and additions already carried out. Having regard to its design, this small addition, in my view, would be unobtrusive, and would be successfully subsumed within the whole without causing visual harm or giving rise to an overdeveloped appearance.

Moreover, the rear of the dwelling is visually sheltered. A railway in cutting lies to the north with trees, a high fence and outbuilding providing screening from this direction. The existing first floor extension would largely mask views of the proposed extension from a significant proportion of the domestic gardens to the west; the extension could be seen from a limited number of private gardens to the east, but it would be set against the backcloth and profile of the existing first floor extension. The proposed extension would therefore be barely noticeable if built.

I conclude that having regard to the particular circumstances of the case the SPD’s guidance on the width of extensions need not be slavishly adhered to. This small extension would sit harmoniously in its much-changed visual context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, the proposals accord with those provisions of LP3 policy LP1 requiring the design to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the site and relates well to its existing context.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose a condition in respect of external materials, although it will vary from that suggested by the Council.

It is necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

To ensure compliance with policy D12 of the London Plan I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition relating to [name].

I consider a further condition restricting building times is necessary so as to protect neighbouring amenity.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations including the representations made by a local resident which relates principally to the nuisance claimed to have been caused to residents arising from building works recently carried out in this part of the street. A condition regarding hours of building is imposed so that people may enjoy their gardens at reasonable times. 3 Richmond Local Plan 2018 2

Comments are also made by the resident in respect of the alleged overdevelopment, which I have already dealt with, and impact on neighbours by reason of the extension’s effect on sunlight and daylight. The officer report assesses possible impacts on neighbouring amenity and I share the conclusion reached that the extension, if built, would not give rise to any harmful consequences on neighbouring residents.

All other matters raised have been considered but none outweighs the considerations which led to my conclusions.