Appeal 3323580

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling located at the junction of [address] and [address]. The dwelling has a two-storey extension to the side, with a hipped roof over both its main roof, and the roof of the extension. The appeal site is located within an area comprising of detached and semi-detached dwellings which display both hipped and gable roof forms, including some with rear loft conversions.

The adjoining dwelling, [address], has a recently completed hip to gable rear dormer loft conversion1. The proposed hip to gable roof extension at No 78 would therefore result in the semi-detached pair having a more balanced appearance in this regard.

The proposed roof dormer would also be of a similar size to the large dormer on the rear of No 76. Notwithstanding this, the dormer would not comply with the design guidance set out in the [address] Extensions and [name] (May 2015) (SPD) which states that roof extensions should not dominate the original roof and dormer windows should be smaller than that of windows on the floor below. Whilst not statutory, the SPD provides useful design guidance. 1 Lawful Development Certificate ref. 22/2219/PS192 granted on 6 September 2022

The hip to gable extension to the main roof and to the roof over the existing two storey extension, together with the large dormer, would in combination, result in a significant increase to the scale, bulk and mass of the dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed extensions would result in the dwelling having a rather ‘top heavy’ appearance which would detract from its original scale, form and character. This would be further accentuated by the large windows, french doors and Juliet balcony on the rear dormer which would exceed the size of all other openings on the rear elevation of the dwelling and would also be contrary to the SPD guidance.

The dwelling is located in a prominent location at the junction of [address] and [address]. The proposed extensions would be particularly apparent when viewed from [address] and would combine to appear as overly dominant and unsympathetic additions to the dwelling which I consider would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I acknowledge that there are some similarities between the appeal proposal and the extensions to [address] although the proposed hip to gable extension over the existing two storey side extension would add additional volume. Furthermore, the appeal property is in a more prominent location given its closer proximity to [address] where the flank and rear elevations are both highly visible due to the siting of the dwelling at an angle to the road. Whilst there are other land uses and large scale buildings along [address], the proposed extensions would be seen in the same context as the other residential dwellings on the western side of [address] and along the start of [address] where they would appear as overly bulky, incongruous additions to the dwelling.

The appellant has also highlighted examples in the local area of hip to gable extensions and rear dormers. However, I have identified that it is the cumulative effect of the proposed extensions together with their prominent siting, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) which requires all development to be of a high architectural and urban design quality which respects, contributes and enhances the local environmental character. It would also conflict with the design objectives of the SPD.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.