Appeal 6000908

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed first floor side extension with front and rear dormer to roof. Single storey rear extension. Conversion of garage into habitable room with new window in place of existing garage doors, new windows/ front entrance door with internal structural alterations, enlargement of front lounge room and fenestration at [site address] Hill, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/2F2437, subject to the following conditions:

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 approved drawing numbers DN 02 [name], DN 03 [name], DN 04 [name] and DN 05 [name]

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name], dated 08/07/2025.

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 new Richmond Local Plan was adopted following the Council’s decision on the proposals. I have referred to it in my recommendation as it is the development plan at the time. The main parties have commented on the relevance of new policies. In addition, the Council does not object to the front roof light, infilling front extension, the replacement, new and altered windows or the front door. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the side and rear extensions and the main issue which is their effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a chalet-style semi-detached dwelling with first-floor accommodation set within a steeply pitched roof and broad flat-roofed dormers. The surrounding area includes similar chalet-style semi-detached properties as well as other dwelling types, such as two-storey houses with pitched roofs. Many homes feature single-storey side extensions, and a smaller number have two-storey additions. Combined with varied external finishes, this mix of building forms gives the area a diverse character.

The first floor of the proposed extension would be constructed in a similar design to that of the chalet dwelling. It would not comply with the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document - [name] and [name] 2015 (SPD) because the first floor would not be stepped back by a metre either to the front or side and it would be larger than over half the width of the host dwelling. However, the SPD provides guidance as opposed to policy and in this instance, the proposal would be visibly set back from the front and side at first floor, albeit less than the defined amount within the SPD. Whilst the proposal would also be over half the width of the host dwelling, these factors would mean that it would not appear at odds with the varied building forms within the immediate context of the site, namely its attached neighbour at Number [address].

Whilst it would be a substantial addition, for the reasons above, the extension would be subservient and would generally mirror that of its attached neighbour, meaning that the semi-detached dwellings would still be appreciated as a fairly symmetrical pair. There is no obvious building uniformity in the area to which any unbalancing would stand out in an unsympathetic way in any case.

The proposed development seeks to introduce a full-width, single-storey extension, incorporating a single-pitched roof that would project to the lower edge of the existing dormer. Whilst a number of similarly designed properties have undergone alterations, there remains a notable consistency in the legibility of roof pitches across these chalet-style dwellings. Given the urban arrangement, the roof of the extension would be prominently visible from [address].

Whilst the proposal would breach the established eaves line of the dwelling, the legibility of the existing steep-pitched roof form, and its subsequent identification within the wider group of dwellings, would remain. GRP roof material would appear at odds with the tiles of the existing roof and the majority of the proposed single storey rear extension, but it would allow tiles of the original roof to remain prominent as the original roof form. Indeed, the SPD notes that extensions should appear as an obvious addition so that the original form of the host dwelling can still be appreciated.

The proposed development would thus not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or wider area. As such, it would comply with Policy 28 of the Richmond Local Plan which, among other things, aims to ensure development respects local character in terms of massing, form, and materials.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity, simplicity and enforceability. In addition to the standard time limit condition one requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. The plans show the external materials which would be acceptable and thus a further condition would not be necessary. In the interests of ensuring compliance with Policy D12 of the London Plan, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring that the proposal is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name].

The new roof at the rear would be pitched, mainly tiled, have three large roof lights and would be accessible only via mid-level windows on the first floor. Accordingly, it is unlikely to be used as seating area/balcony. In any event, Building Regulations would likely require balustrades which would likely in themselves, alongside the roof’s use, require planning permission. It is therefore not necessary to impose a condition restricting its use.

The appeal scheme would accord with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance. I therefore 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, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.