Appeal 6000412

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the creation of a front gable at the northern end of the property and associated relocation of bedroom four and bathroom at first floor level, at Westbourne, [site address] , Richmond upon Thames, Hampton [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application PA25/1337, subject to the conditions set out below.

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: 0S01, PR00 [name], EX01, EX02, EX03, EX04, PR02 [name], PR05 [name], PR04 [name], PR01 [name], PR03 [name], [name] [name].

The proposed first floor window in the side elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be glazed with obscure glass and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed and thereafter so retained.

The roof area of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden, or similar amenity area.

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).

I note that the Council state that the proposal is contrary to the London Plan (2021). However, I have not been directed to any relevant Policy or Policies contained within the London Plan or their relevance in this case.

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 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 a detached single storey residential dwelling located on the east side of [site address] at its northern end. [address] is to the north of the property and Tanglewood is located to the south. The property is modest in scale and proportion and is situated in a generous plot. The surrounding area is residential with a varied mix of both detached houses and bungalows, some of which appear to have been subject to alterations and extensions and many of which have front gables.

The appeal property benefits from an extant planning permission which was granted at appeal1. The extant consent is a material consideration of significant weight in the appeal. The subject appeal differs from that permission in that, externally, it would extend the property to the front elevation with a first-floor forward roof projection with gable and internally relocate bedroom four and bathroom at first floor level. Therefore, although the whole development is before me, I shall focus my attention on those elements of the proposed scheme.

The proposed first floor front gable would introduce a forward projection from the roof, with gable to the front elevation, the highest point of which would not extend above the ridge. This proposed addition would be of a modest mass and scale and would appear subservient to the main roof whilst maintaining good proportions and allowing the overall composition to sit comfortably within its plot.

I acknowledge that guidance in the [name] and [name] (2015) advises avoiding roof extensions at the front of a house particularly where a gable already exists. However, there would be similarities to the adjacent property, Tanglewood, locally listed by the Council, which would tie the design elements together and would create a pleasant, patterned form of development. I also note that the wider area contains front gables to the front elevations further grounding the design in the vernacular of the vicinity. Taken together, these factors would improve the character and appearance of the host dwelling, its relationship with a locally listed heritage asset and wider area. These factors justify overriding the guidance in this specific case.

I note the Inspector in the previous appeal case described that the front elevation, as approved, would retain its modest proportions appearing as a single storey property with rooms in the roof. Whilst the proposal would clearly add a second 1 APP/L5810/D/24/3352880 storey element, I have reasoned above how this would maintain a subservient and modest appearance, would sit comfortably within its setting and that it would improve the character and appearance of the area. I therefore conclude that the introduction of a subservient modest second storey element to the front elevation does not detract from the proposal’s overall modest forward composition.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling nor that of the wider area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy 28 of the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (2025) insofar as it seeks high quality design that improves the quality of the character and appearance of buildings and local spaces. The proposal would also comply with the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, insofar as it seeks high quality design, amongst other things. Furthermore, the proposal would comply with the guidance in the [name] and [name] supplementary planning document (2015), insofar as it seeks that alterations enhance the quality of the building.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty.

The proposed materials should accord with those set out on the approved plans to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. Although the schedule of materials provides for some alternatives for some of the materials, given the variety of materials in the local area, including the adjoining locally listed building, I see no reason why further details and samples need to be submitted and approved by the Council.

The side facing window at first floor serving the en-suite bathroom should be obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room to protect the living conditions of surrounding neighbours. Similarly, a condition to require that no part of the roof of the extended property should be used as a balcony or sitting out area is required to protect the living conditions of surrounding neighbours.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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