Appeal 3336282

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the ground floor flat of No. [address].

The appeal property is located within a row of traditional two storey terraced houses with two storey projecting outriggers to the rear. The property has been extended by a 3.7 metre deep rear infill extension constructed within the gap to the side of the outrigger. It projects up to the side boundary with No.63a (the ground floor [address]) and its side parapet wall is some 3.2m high.

Planning permission was approved in 20221 for a 6m deep addition to be built onto the existing infill extension resulting in a 9.7m extension. The design of the approved extension did not include a parapet wall along the shared boundary. The eaves height of the approved development at the boundary with No. 63a was 2.2m, which is not dissimilar to a 2m boundary treatment.

An appeal2 has been dismissed at the property for a retrospective development for a 6m extension built onto the existing infill extension. The proposal included a parapet wall of some 3.1m in height adjacent No. 63a with an eaves height of 2.885. The proposal before me reduces the height of the development from that of the previously dismissed appeal, yet higher than the approved development. 1 Ref: 22/0238/HOT 2 APP/L5810/D/23/3320024

Notwithstanding this the proposed rear elevation submitted does not appear to include the reduction in height. No. 63a has windows and doors face towards the previous built extension and the proposed development.

Whilst the proposed development reduces the height of the extension I agree with the previous Planning Inspectors findings that due to their combined height and depth the two extensions are visually overbearing and would create a sense of enclosure to the rooms served by the adjacent windows and rear doors.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the ground floor flat of No. [address].

There is conflict with Policy LP8 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2018) which seeks to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties by ensuring that developments are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact as a result of their height, massing or siting, including through creating a sense of enclosure.

There is conflict with London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document, [name] and [name] (2015) which seeks amongst other things to protect residential amenity.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents: Plan No’s: GI/RI/1 10 PA4, GI/RI/1 11 PA4, GI/RI/1 12 PA4, GI/RI/1 13 PA4, GI/RI/1 15 PA4, GI/RI/1 16 PA4, GI/RI/1 17 PA4, GI/RI/1 18 PA4, GI/RI/1 19 PA4, GI/RI/ 1250 and GI/RI/1 200 PA4.

The external materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

No part(s) of the roof of the building(s) hereby approved shall be used as a balcony or terrace nor shall any access be formed thereto.

The development hereby approved shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the principles and methodology as described within the approved Arboricultural details: Arboricultural Impact Assessment & [name].2017.089 & Tree Constraints Plan / Tree Protection Plan Ref: AC.2017.093, unless otherwise previously agreed in writing with the local planning authority.