Appeal 6000250

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a dormer over the rear projection and chimney removal at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref PA25/0142, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: LR_25_70ARLINGTON_plan_00 Site and Location Plan and LR_25_70ARLINGTON_plan_02 [name], Sections & Elevations.

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

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] prepared by Studio 136 architects received on 17th February 2025 and retained as such thereafter.

The Richmond Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) [name] dated June 2023 has reached an advanced stage of preparation with the main hearings having taken place and the examining Inspector’s report awaited. However, I have not been advised whether there are any unresolved objections or outstanding requirements for modifications, particularly in respect of Policies 28 and 46 which are referenced in the Council’s officer report. Therefore, I have assessed the proposal against the adopted policies of the development plan before me, these being included in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, adopted July 2018 (LP).

Whilst the Council’s reasons for refusal set out on the decision notice do not refer to any development plan policies, the Council’s officer report clearly refers to the relevant policies in the LP and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; • The living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to daylight and sunlight; and • Whether there are any material considerations, including any fallback position which would outweigh any identified harm.

The appeal dwelling is a terraced property with an existing flat roof dormer window in the rear roof slope and a two-storey rear outrigger with a sloping roof.

The proposed addition of a flat roof dormer over the rear outrigger would result in an L shape flat roof over the entire rear roofscape of the property. This would erode the character of the original roof. In addition, the appeal proposal by virtue of its design and scale would be a dominant and unsympathetic addition to the dwelling.

As a result, conflict would arise with Policy LP1 of the LP which seeks to ensure that development respects local character including scale, height, form and massing.

The proposed extension would be located to the south of No. 72, which has a dormer window in the rear roof slope which extends up to the boundary with the host dwelling.

The bulk, form and siting of the appeal proposal on the boundary with the neighbouring property would result in overshadowing to the closest window in the rear dormer of No.72 resulting in the loss of daylight and sunlight and there is no substantive evidence before me, such as a daylight and sunlight assessment, to the contrary.

However, the evidence before me indicates that the window in question serves a staircase rather than a habitable room. The other window, serving a bedroom, would be far enough away that overshadowing to a harmful extent would not occur.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. No conflict would arise with Policy LP8 of the LP which requires development to protect the amenity and living conditions of neighbouring properties by enabling good standards of daylight and sunlight to be achieved.

The Council recently granted a Certificate of [name] Development1 (CPLD) at the appeal site for a flat roof dormer over the rear outrigger. This would result in a development which would be similar in appearance to that before me. 1 [name]: PA25/0039 Erection of a dormer over the rear projection and chimney removal. Decision Date: 21 March 2025 There is a reasonable prospect that this scheme would be implemented in the absence of an alternative permission. Consequently, it represents a viable fallback position.

The CPLD proposal was for a dormer which would be set down slightly from the existing dormer and set back from the end of the rear outrigger. It would therefore be smaller than the appeal proposal but would nonetheless erode the majority of the original roofscape. It would also result in a break in the rear roofline resulting in an awkward and complex roof scape. By contrast, the appeal proposal would continue the eaves line of the existing dormer, resulting in a more unified and harmonious appearance.

I also saw that other properties in [address] have been extended in the same manner as the appeal proposal, which the appellant has identified as Nos 42, 44, 46 and 48. In particular, the neighbouring property in the terrace, No. 68, has a flat roof dormer which extends out over the rear outrigger with a roof level which matches the rear dormer on the main roof, in the same manner as the appeal proposal. In this respect, the appeal proposal would not appear out of place.

Therefore, in considering the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, I have taken into account the fallback position in relation to the appeal property, together with the presence of very similar extensions at Nos 42, 44, 46, 48 and [address]. I conclude that these are material considerations of significant weight which indicate that in this instance, the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interest of certainty. A condition to secure matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition relating to fire safety is necessary to ensure that the development incorporates appropriate fire safety measures as required by Policy D12 of The London Plan adopted March 2021.

A condition preventing the use of the flat roof is not necessary as no means of accessing the roof is indicated on the drawings.

The proposed development would not adhere to the development plan but in this instance, material considerations, indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should succeed.