Appeal 6000436

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘extensions and refurbishment of the house comprising, ground floor rear & side extensions, two storey side and rear extensions, hip to gable conversion, construction of square bay, construction of a chimney. Existing window openings altered, and new window openings and windows installed. New front door installed with arched surround. External insulation and render applied to existing walls at [site address] , Richmond upon Thames [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/0771 and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule below.

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.

Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Richmond Local Plan (2025) (LP). The main parties were aware of what the emerging policies were at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed since their formal adoption. Therefore, I have had regard to the most up to date

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property.

The surrounding area consists of a variety of detached dwellings which differ in terms of their building form and design; however, they are all generally large in scale. Many properties along [address] resemble Arts and Craft style architecture, featuring multiple roof forms at different angles, and a variety of fenestration layout and design. Dwellings along [address] vary in design, and the properties at 283 and [address] (Nos 283 and 279) introduce a contemporary design to the area, featuring large amounts of glazing and wood cladding. This architectural variety is a distinctive feature of the area. The appeal site, [site address] (No 265) sits comfortably within its generous corner plot. The dwelling currently features white render to its façade, a hipped roof, and the forward projecting element features a gable end roof.

The original roof form of No 265 would be transformed following the roof alterations and additions. Whilst a number of dwellings feature hipped and gable roof forms, there is no strict uniformity within the surrounding area, with examples of dwellings which have introduced new roof features within the street scene, as seen at No’s 283 and 279.

Guidance contained within the [address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) advises that the form and scale of extensions need to be designed to integrate with the host dwelling. The SPD further advises that two-storey additions should not exceed half the width of the original dwelling so as to remain sympathetic to its form and character. Whilst cumulatively the extensions would exceed the recommended figures, the set down in ridge height of the two-storey side element, and clear visual break between this and the single storey element proposed would ensure that the proposal would not dominate the host property. This, combined with the use of different materials, would aid the scheme in terms of breaking up the structures. Therefore, the side elements of the proposal would appear subservient to the host dwelling whilst also assimilating with the properties overall form due to the half-hipped roofs proposed to each side. Given the scale of the host dwelling and the variety of design, form and scale of neighbouring properties, the roof would respect the scale of the host dwelling and would not appear as an overly dominant feature within the street scene.

Whilst the SPD resists raising the height of dwelling’s original roof level, the proposed 25cm increase is not considered to result in unacceptable impacts when considering the generous separation distances between neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would increase the footprint of the host dwelling; however, the proposal would not lead to the property appearing cramped or diminish the sense of spaciousness. It would continue to sit comfortably within its generously sized plot. The level of glazing to the rear would have limited visibility from the street scene, and it's positioning at ground floor level would limit its presence when viewed from neighbouring properties.

Therefore, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policy 28 of the LP (2025) which, amongst other matters, requires that proposals are compatible with the local character, and demonstrate that they would sympathetically upgrade and reuse existing buildings, rather than demolishing and building new, allowing for a better response to the local character.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance on conditions. I have amended a number of the conditions in the interest of clarity. The appellant has confirmed their agreement to the proposed pre-commencement condition.

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord.

Due to the presence of trees on site a condition relating to the submission of an [name] (AMS) is necessary to ensure that sufficient tree protection measures are in place. The condition relating to the AMS is a pre-commencement condition as it is necessary to ensure that trees are effectively protected from the outset of the development. A condition relating to sustainable drainage is required to ensure that the proposal would not exacerbate the risk of flooding for the area.

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.

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 the following plans: Site Location Plan, 2023.03.03.Pln03.060, 2023.03.03.Pln03.061.A, 2023.03.03.Pln03.062.A, 2023.03.03.Pln03.063.A, 2023.03.03.Pln03.002.B, 2023.03.03.Pln03.022.B, 2023.03.03.Pln03.023, 2023.03.03.Pln03.024.A, 2023.03.03.Pln03.025.A.

Prior to the commencement of development, an [name] (AMS), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The AMS must: a. be written in accordance with and address sections 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 7 of [name] 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations; b. outline any tree constraints and explain any impacts for both above and below ground; c. provide details of all servicing runs (existing and proposed); d. detail all tree protection (including plans); e. detail any special engineering for construction within the Root Protection Area; f. detail any facilitation pruning that may be required. The specification for tying back and/or pruning must be measurable and prepared by a suitably qualified Arboriculturalist or [name]. All tree work must be undertaken in accordance with BS3998:2010 Tree work – recommendations, unless approved in writing by the [name]; g. provide confirmation of the appointment of an [name] for the duration of the development; a schedule of inspections to ensure an auditable monitoring and supervision programme; and a timetable for submission to the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved AMS.

No development above ground shall take place until a [name] (SuDS) has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The SuDS shall be prepared in accordance with Policy 8(H) of the Richmond Local Plan (2025). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy, and shall be maintained and managed thereafter in accordance with the approved details.