Appeal 6001813

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/2774, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: HP 5939 Issue A SH 1, HP 5939 Issue A SH 2, HP 5939 Issue A SH3 and HP 5939 Issue A SH 4.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development herby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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’s decision notice refers to its Local Plan Review (2018). However, this has been replaced by the new Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan ‘The best of our borough’ (2024 – 2039) (Local Plan) which was adopted prior to the submission of the appeal. Accordingly, I have only referred to this replacement Local Plan in my

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the street scene along [address].

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling located on a corner plot in [address]. Each property on [address] has a small garden or parking area at the front allowing fairly open views of the front of the properties.

I noted on my site visit that many of the properties feature a large front porch which covers approximately half of the width of the front of the property. However, the front of the properties are not identical, with some featuring integral garages whilst others having converted the garage to living space. There is also variation in the placement and design of some of the windows and doors at the front of the properties.

I also saw on my site visit that a number of properties feature a full width ground floor front extension, comparable to the appeal proposal. I note the Council’s view that these examples do not illustrate good design and were granted under permitted development rights or historically dated. However, the full width extensions did not appear overly dominant on the dwellings or disrupt the street scene in a negative way.

Whilst the dwellings on the Close are broadly similar in appearance, it is the building proportions and materials, spacing between properties and clearly defined front building line that provides a sense of rhythm to the appearance of the Close.

The proposal is for a modest single storey front extension. The extension would not project forward of the current building line and the materials will be very similar to the current porch. The window design and placement in the proposed extension would reflect some of the styles already present along the Close. Whilst widening of the porch and the sloping roof would change the appearance, the style is in keeping with the property and other front extensions on the Close. Moreover, the roof form of the proposed extension would harmonise well with the existing roof slope of the host property. The appeal dwelling is also discreetly located on a corner plot and the frontage is not highly visible or prominent in the street scene.

On the basis of the above, I do not consider that the proposed front extension would be dominant or unduly disrupt the appearance of the property or the street scene. I therefore conclude, for the above reasons, that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on this part of the [address] street scene. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy 28 of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure development seeks to maintain and enhance high architectural and urban design quality. It also accords with the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document which states that extensions should not dominate the existing house and harmonise with the original appearance.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. Where necessary, and in the interests of clarity and precision, I have slightly altered the conditions to better reflect the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. This included the fire safety plan, to ensure the development incorporates the necessary fire safety measures. I have included a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing building to protect the character and appearance of the appeal property.

The proposal would not conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. 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.