Appeal 6000392

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039, which was in draft at the time the Council refused planning permission, was formally adopted on 7 October 2025. This replaces the Richmond Local Plan (2018), such that the policies of that plan cited on the decision notice are no longer part of the development plan and have no weight. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to the relevant policies within the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan).

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The appeal property is an end-of-terrace, two-storey dwelling situated within a cul-de-sac on a larger residential estate. The cul-de-sac is arranged in a U-shape, comprising three rows of terraces, with the appeal property occupying a corner position at the end of one row.

There are small gaps at the end of each terrace and, combined with the hipped roof form, these demarcate the separation of the properties and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal property has a single storey side extension and hip to gable conversion; however, the gap between the terraces remains legible.

The wider estate displays a consistent character, with properties of similar form, set back, materials, fenestration, and roof types, creating a uniform and considered layout. Terraced rows are interspersed with cul-de-sacs and occasional semi-detached pairs, while deliberate gaps between buildings contribute positively to the area’s overall pattern and streetscape.

The proposal would add bulk, mass, and scale to the first floor to the side and rear which would harmfully dominate the host dwelling, notwithstanding its subordinacy, matching materials and hipped roof. Furthermore, the proposal would fill the important gap at this location, harmfully eroding a positive characteristic of the area. Consequently, the proposal would fail to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

Whilst views from the rear may be less accessible, the property is surrounded by other dwellings and views of the rear and side are widely available and from where the harm would be seen, despite some vegetative screening. Furthermore, the lack of neighbourly objections to the proposal does not justify the harm I have found.

The proposal would be less than half the width of the original dwelling and at least one metre from the boundary. In these regards the proposal would comply with some of the guidance in the SPD. However, compliance with the guidance in this manner would be a neutral consideration and would not outweigh the harm I have found above.

I acknowledge that the development would increase the size of a family property. However, these are primarily personal circumstances that would not outweigh the harm identified.

My attention has been drawn to other properties that have extended at the first floor. Nos [address] and [address] are both located at the end of a terrace, on a corner plot, at a road junction. As such they only have an immediate spatial relationship to one other dwelling. In contrast, the appeal property has an immediate spatial relationship with two dwellings. In addition, those properties have a materially different design to the subject appeal and were approved under a different iteration of the Local Plan. As such I afford them little weight.

[address] is of similar design to the subject appeal. I do not have sufficient substantive detail before me to understand the considerations of that application. However, it was clear on my site visit that the effects of that development do not erode an important gap between buildings, given its location and orientation regarding other properties. Furthermore, that application was approved under a different iteration of the Local Plan and material differences exist with the scale and siting of the extensions. Therefore, I differentiate this development and afford it limited weight.

Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policy 28 of the Local Plan insofar as it seeks development that respects, contributes to, and maximises opportunities to enhance the local character, and conflicts with the SPD insofar as it seeks side and rear extensions whose overall shape, size, and position would not dominate the existing house.

I acknowledge that the appeal property and the wider estate suffer with defective structures. I also accept the lack of harm on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the lack of objections. However, even taken cumulatively, these matters would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.