Appeal 6000841

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).

Whilst the whole of the development is before me, I have confined my consideration to the element of the development in dispute, namely the first-floor rear extension.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed first floor extension on 1) the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, and 2) the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook.

The appeal property comprises a two storey, mid terrace dwelling situated on [address] within a continuous row of similar terraced houses forming a coherent group, including Nos. 39-61. These properties share common characteristics, including consistent materials and fenestration, simple pitched roofs, and narrow plot widths. The rear elevation of the terrace exhibits a variety of single storey extensions of differing designs, most of which span the full width of the respective plots. No. 49 is atypical in that it retains a half width, single storey rear outrigger with a single pitched roof.

The proposed first floor rear extension would incorporate a hip at one end and a gable at the other with a crown top. Although the use of matching materials is noted, this discordant roof arrangement would result in an uncharacteristic and awkward addition to the otherwise simple rear elevation. Its position at first floor level would further accentuate its prominence, draw undue attention, and appear uncharacteristic within the context of the host dwelling.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that extensions should harmonise with the original building and for the reasons set out above, its design would fail to achieve visual cohesion and would present an awkward and harmful appearance contrary to the SPD. I acknowledge that in regard to its width, depth, height below the eaves, use of blended materials and reading as an obvious addition, the design would comply with some elements of the SPD. However, whilst it complies with some elements of the SPD, it does not comply with it as a whole and such compliance does not outweigh the harm identified.

Nos. 39 and [address] incorporate first floor rear additions. These properties are located at either end of the terrace and adjoin dwellings of greater ridge height, bulkier form, and differing overall characteristics. While the development at No. 61 is not typical of the prevailing pattern of development, I note that it was approved under planning reference 21/3081/HOT. I have no substantive details before me regarding the considerations that informed that decision and, accordingly, I cannot be certain of the factors that were taken into account. In any event, that extension does not share the same characteristics as the proposal before me and was permitted under a previous iteration of the development plan which is no longer in effect. For these reasons, I afford it limited weight in my assessment.

Similarly, I do not have any substantive detail for the development at No 39 and cannot be certain what the considerations were for that development or if it even has permission at all. Again, it does not share the same characteristics as the proposal before me. For these reasons, I afford it little weight.

Consequently, the proposed first floor extension would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposed first floor extension would conflict with the Richmond Local Plan (2025) (the Local Plan) Policy 28, insofar as it seeks high quality architectural design that contributes to and maximises opportunities to enhance the local character and would also conflict with the SPD insofar as it seeks rear extensions that harmonise with the original building.

The kitchen window at No 49 is located in the flank elevation of the rear outrigger and faces the flank wall of No 47 and the proposed development at No 45. Outlook from this window is already compromised by the height and proximity of the existing rear extension at No 47; however, some outlook remains. I was able to appreciate the current outlook from the property on my site visit. Despite working proactively to reduce the sense of enclosure by reducing the depth and height of the proposal, the proposed development would introduce mass, bulk, and scale to the rear of the appeal property and further adversely affect the outlook from No 49. Due to the height, depth, and proximity of the proposed first floor extension the proposal would be visually intrusive and lead to an increased sense of enclosure from the kitchen window.

I acknowledge that No 49 is not the immediate neighbour to No 45 and that No 47 is positioned in between; however, the plots are narrow, and the impact would be harmful despite the separation. I accept that there is no right to a view; however, development plan policy and guidance within the SPD specifically seeks to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining and neighbouring properties. This would include outlook.

I accept that privacy of adjoining and neighbouring occupiers would not be adversely affected; that the proposal would not conflict with the 45-degree rule in the SPD, and that evidence before me confirms no measurable loss of daylight or sunlight. However, the absence of harm on these matters would be neutral factors and would not overcome the harm found relating to outlook.

Consequently, the proposed first floor extension would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook.

Accordingly, the proposed first floor extension would conflict with the Local Plan Policy 46, insofar as it requires all development to protect the living conditions of occupants of adjoining and neighbouring properties. Specifically in terms of retaining adequate outlooks for neighbouring properties, avoiding any sense of enclosure, and ensuring that proposals are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing effect. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with guidance within the SPD, insofar as it seeks to avoid enclosure or overbearing development when seen from neighbouring properties.

I acknowledge that the appellant has undertaken pre-application discussions with the Council and taken on board comments that were made, including by the [name]. Such an approach is commendable and promoted by the Framework, however any contradiction between the Council’s informal views prior to determination, and its final decision, is not a reason to allow the appeal.

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.