Appeal 6001674

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the re-instatement of the chimney at the rear of No.20 and No. [site address] and works at No.22 comprising merging of the patio doors, rear elevation first floor windows, rear first floor extension, and relocation of stairs between basement patio and ground floor at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/0138, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: L+2324_303 [name]; L+2324_000 [name] Plan; L+2324_100 [name] Plan; L+2324_101 [name] Plan; L+2324_202 [name]; L+2324_203 [name]; and L+2324_303 [name].

I have taken the description from the Council’s decision notice as it appears to be more comprehensive than the description given on the planning application form. However, I have deleted words which are not acts of development.

I saw that the works described above had already been carried out.

The Council’s reason for refusal references the Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19). The Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP) was formally adopted on 7 October 2025 and therefore I have determined the appeal in accordance with it.

The appeal proposals include the reinstatement of the chimney and works to the ground floor and basement which do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the first floor rear extension on the character and appearance of the host building as a Building of [name] (BTM) and the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA is a dense urban area which derives its special character from its eclectic mix of building types and uses, resulting in a high-quality townscape. The CA gains significance from its architectural and historic interest.

The appeal dwelling is one of a coherent group of miniature Victorian villas in semi-detached pairs, linked as a terrace by single storey side porches. These have been identified as BTM’s. When viewed from the road, the brick-built properties have largely retained their original features and windows. They therefore contribute positively to the significance of the CA.

The appeal scheme includes a first-floor rear extension that exceeds half the width of the dwelling. Its lean-to roof is hidden behind a parapet, meaning it does not match the lean-to roof of the neighbouring property. As a result, the scheme conflicts with the guidance set out in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted May 2015), which seeks to ensure that extensions do not overwhelm the original scale and character of the building.

Unlike the uniform front elevations of the BTMs, the rear elevations, and particularly that of the host dwelling, have been heavily altered. A mixture of past additions and extensions means that the rear lacks the consistency found at the front. The host dwelling, with its extensive glazing in a flat roof rear addition, already has a contemporary character. Within this context, the proposed first-floor extension does not appear incongruous. As it only slightly exceeds half the width of the house, it does not dominate the rear elevation.

The area to the rear of the property is entirely enclosed by tall boundary walls. Consequently, views of the rear of the building are very limited and I could not identify anywhere beyond the private gardens of the properties close to the appeal site where the proposal is visible.

As a result, I find that the impact on the significance of both the BTM and the CA is a neutral one. The proposal therefore preserves the character or appearance of the CA. [name] find no conflict with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the LP which require high quality design which respects local character and safeguards the significance and appearance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

As the work has already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach the standard time condition or the condition suggested by the Council relating to emission standards during construction. However, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

I have not attached the condition restricting the use of the roof of the extension as one was not imposed on the earlier planning permission1 and the circumstances in this appeal are not materially different in that respect.

The Council have also suggested a condition which requires that the development is carried out in accordance with the [name] submitted to the Council. However, neither that document nor the corresponding development plan policy is before me. In any event, as the development has been carried out, the condition would not meet the tests in Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed development adheres to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.