Appeal 6000425

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal differs from the application form to the decision notice. For reasons of clarity, I have taken the description in the heading above from the application form, omitting superfluous wording.

The Council’s Decision Notice and [name] quote the policies of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan which was adopted in July 2018. However, these policies have been superseded by the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan ‘The best for our borough’ (2024 to 2039) which was adopted during the course of the appeal process and now forms part of the statutory development plan for the area. The Council has provided me with policies from the new Local Plan which it considers of most relevance to the current appeal, and I have based my decision on these policies rather than those which were originally quoted in the Decision Notice.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed roof extension on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area.

[site address] is situated on the first floor of a detached property, located near the junction of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a group of two-storey semi-detached dwellings of similar scale and design. These properties typically feature hipped or gable roofs and bay windows, and they are finished with brick, render or a combination of both. Together, these architectural elements contribute positively to the coherent character and appearance of the area.

The proposed dormer would extend across the full width of the rear roof slope and would rise from eaves level up to the ridge. Whilst the proposal would partially retain the existing hipped roof profile to the front, its substantial width and height would create a bulky and top-heavy addition. This would erode the legibility of the original roof form and visually dominate the rear elevation. As a result, the proposal would introduce an incongruous and unduly prominent roof form that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property.

Furthermore, the adverse effect of the appeal proposal would be exacerbated by its visibility from public vantage points along [address] and [address]. As such, it would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant contends that the design and size of the proposed roof extension would be consistent with other developments in the area. At my site visit, I observed a variety of roof alterations and extensions, including some gable roof extensions, within the surrounding area. However, they follow different architectural approaches and are generally less prominent. In most cases, roof alterations are set back from the eaves, thereby preserving the visible form of the original roof.

The appellant also suggests that the volume of the proposed dormer could fall within permitted development limits if the property were a dwellinghouse. Notwithstanding this, the property is a flat and I have assessed the proposal on its own merits.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan ‘The best for our borough’ (2024 to 2039) and that requires all development to be of high architectural quality which respects, contributes and enhances the local environment and character of the area.

I have considered the appellant’s concerns about the roof leaking, however I am not satisfied that the proposal is the only means by which such an issue may be addressed.

I note that the appeal proposal would provide larger accommodation for the appellant’s growing family, and the neighbouring occupiers raise no objection to the appeal proposal. However, it is likely that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be material. For this reason, I therefore find that these factors are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The appellant refers to positive discussions with the Council. However, any such discussions would appear to have been informal and not binding on any future decision the Council may make once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process. Therefore, this matter does not lead me away from my conclusion on the main issue in this case.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.