Appeal 6000473

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the proposed loft conversion with 3 inset rear dormers over the main, the front slope of the roof will have 3 skylights, at [site address] , [name], Twickenham [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application PA25/1602, 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 and documents: 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 10. Location Plan (dated 13 May 2025) and [name] (dated 26 February 2025).

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

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 policy LP1 of that plan cited on the decision notice is no longer part of the development plan and has no weight. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to the relevant policies within the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan), with particular regard to policy 28.

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

The appeal property is a top floor maisonette located within a two storey semi detached property. The street consists of a row of matching semi detached properties of patterned form, style, and materials which back onto a railway line. The front elevations are particularly pleasing in terms of design and materials. Views to the rear are limited to glimpses from a public footway on the opposite side of the railway line and private views from the rear of surrounding properties.

The proposal would construct three rear dormers over the main rear roof, similar to those that exist at number [address] (No. 5A). The design would be recessed to be subordinate to the roof slope. Furthermore, it would be symmetrical and would use similar sized and proportioned windows, and would use matching materials, to existing features within the building. The visual result would be a subservient addition to the roofscape that maintains the character of the host dwelling. Moreover, the design would be similar to the recently approved rear dormer windows at No. 5A that demonstrates how such a feature can complement the existing building. Overall, the proposal would demonstrate a good understanding of the site and its context.

I acknowledge the Council’s concern that the number of windows in the roofscape would not be consistent with the number of windows at the floors below. However, no policy or guidance is before me that requires the number of windows must match, only that the proportions and sizes should be consistent.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would complement the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy 28 of the Local Plan. This seeks, among other matters, for development to be compatible with the local character, development patterns, scale, form, materials, and detailing. The proposal would also comply with the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 insofar as it seeks well designed development, and the SPD insofar as it seeks roof extensions that do not dominate the roofscape, and windows consistent with the style of the host dwelling.

I note that representations have been received regarding the effect of the proposal on future planning applications at a neighbouring property. It is not within the remit of this appeal to consider those matters. In any event the proposal would complement the character and appearance of the site and its surrounding and thus would not establish a negative precedent.

I also note representation of matters relating to loss of garden land; however, I have no evidence before me of any loss of garden land and therefore attribute this matter little weight.

I note supportive representations from No.4A regarding access to their loft. Access to private property is not a matter for this appeal.

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

A condition requiring that the external surfaces of the development be constructed in matching materials is necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

The Council have suggested a condition requiring that the Fire Safety Plan be implemented. This is not necessary as that document is part of the approved plans with which the scheme must accord in the interest of certainty and precision.

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.