Appeal 6000866

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 Council adopted the new Richmond Local Plan following their decision on the appeal scheme. I have referred to it in my recommendation since it is forms the development plan at the time. The main parties have commented on the changes. The [address] Extensions and [name] 2015 (SPD) refers to the now superseded local plan, but its principles remain relevant to the substance of the main issue and are in step with the National Planning Policy Framework’s stance on design, appearance and character.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

The appeal building is a semi detached two storey dwelling in a row of similar examples. Whilst some have extensions to the front, they are in the form of small porches which are recessive in the street scene and do not detract from the structure of its uniformity in regularly spaced even rhythmed pairs of part rendered two storey hipped roof dwellings. The original consistency of which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would introduce a substantial front extension which would increase the overall bulk of the host dwelling beyond its adjoined neighbour and the wider row. This would disrupt the established uniformity of both the host dwelling and its attached pair as well as the row, and would unacceptably erode the quality of the contribution the host dwelling makes to its context.

Furthermore, the design of the extension would introduce a front gable wall which would represent an incongruous architectural feature within its context. This, combined with its scale would create an insubordinate addition to the host dwelling, introducing a dominant form of development which would be highly prominent within the street scene. Though the roof of the proposal would appear to be set down from the ridge of the host dwelling, this aspect would not in itself be substantial enough to mitigate the overall lack of subservience.

Whilst the SPD does not contain any specific guidance in relation to front extensions, it does note that extensions should account for the character of the street in its design which, for the reasons above, the proposed development would fail to do. The proposed development would therefore result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. It would thus conflict with Richmond Local Plan Policy 28 which, among other things, aims to ensure that development proposals are compatible with the local character with regard to townscape, urban grain and massing.

[name] 33 and [address] have front extensions of similar design as the proposal, these predate the current context of policies of which the proposal is subject to. They are also not part of the row in which the appeal dwelling finds itself. My findings are therefore unaffected. Similarly, Number [address] (No. 167) is part of a terrace that is of a different design to that of the appeal dwelling’s setting. Many properties within this terrace have a forward extension which appears to be a common architectural feature. In any event, the front extension at No. 167 is of a far lesser depth than that proposed in the appeal before me. It does not therefore represent a precedent for the proposal.

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s position in wanting to provide additional living space, there is no evidence before me that this could not be achieved through means that do not cause the above harms. In this instance, such personal circumstances can therefore attract only limited weight.

Though changes may have been made between the pre-application advice sought from the Council and the submission of a formal application, the purpose of this appeal is to consider what was before the Council at their time of decision. Any pre application advice given by the Council is informal, without prejudice and does not guarantee a certain outcome. A thorough assessment of the scheme is still required at appeal in the context of the main issue, which is taken in this case from the Council’s objections.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore 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.