Appeal 6000074

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ground floor rear & side extension and first floor side extension with boundary wall changes and addition of new skylight at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2483/HOT, and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

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

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 77) a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling, located on the corner of [address] and [address] in a tight-knit residential area where modestly-sized Victorian-era properties predominate.

The architectural focal point of No 77 is its principal (west) elevation, which has a prominent hipped roof projection which incorporates the entrance door and 2 first floor windows. The proposed ground floor rear and side extension would only be slightly deeper than the existing lean-to projection. It would have a flat roof and would be set-back from the principal elevation. Its height would reflect the existing single-storey flat roofed projection facing [address]. As such, it would appear subordinate to, and would not distract from, the appearance of the hipped roof projection. The architectural focal point of No 77 would be maintained.

No 77 and [address] (No 79) share a connected outrigger, as do [address] (No 81) and [address] (No 83). As these are the only pairs of connected outriggers found to the rear of Nos 77 to [address], they do not constitute a regular nor a continuous pattern of development along this stretch of [address]. I observed that there is little consistency with respect to the design and scale of the rear elevations of Nos 77 to [address].

[name] 79 and No 83 have been extended at roof level. These large extensions have considerably altered the architectural form and appearance of their connected outriggers. Their original modest appearance has been lost. The previously-existing symmetry shared between each individual outrigger at No 77 and No 79 has been severely compromised by the presence of the extension at No 79.

The proposed development would not increase the depth of the outrigger at first-floor level. Although the width of the outrigger would be increased, this would only be by a small margin. A set-back would be maintained between the proposed side extension at first floor level and the principal (west) elevation of No 77. All this would ensure that what remains of the architectural symmetry between each outrigger at No 77 and No 79 would not be significantly altered.

Due to the differences in detailed design between the roof-level extensions at Nos 79 and 83, including contrasting window sizes on their northern elevations, the pair of connected outriggers no longer share a uniform appearance. In this context, the proposed modestly-sized extension at first-floor level would not harmfully alter the visual relationship between the pair. Given the varied forms of the rear elevations of nearby properties, where no regular pattern exists, the proposed limited alterations to the outrigger at No 77 would not be especially noticeable.

Hence, the proposed extensions would harmonise with the appearance of No [address] of which No 77 forms a part. The architectural integrity of No 77 would be maintained. I concur with the Council that the other aspects of the proposed development, including the proposed extension of the existing boundary wall, would be sympathetic to local character.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy LP 1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (adopted 2018) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality, and with emerging Policy 28 of the Publication Local Plan which does not significantly differ from the relevant terms of Policy LP 1 of the adopted Local Plan.

I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively.

A condition is necessary controlling external materials to secure an acceptable appearance for the development, to safeguard the character and appearance of the area (condition 3).

To ensure compliance with part A of Policy D12 of the London Plan (published 2021), which requires that all development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety, a condition is necessary requiring compliance with the Planning Fire Safety Strategy (condition 4).

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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: Proposed Site Plan ([name]. TP 01), [name] ([name]. TP 02 ([name])), [name] ([name]. TP 03 ([name])), [name] ([name]. TP 04 ([name])), [address] Elevation ([name]. TP 05 ([name])).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those specified in the application form (dated: 1st October 2024) and as shown on the approved plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the measures specified in the Planning Fire Safety Strategy (Green Cu3ed Architectural Solutions Ltd). The measures implemented shall be retained thereafter. End of Conditions Schedule