Appeal 6002135

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Ground and first floor rear extensions, with replacement dormer windows and a new oriel window including external alterations to an existing house at [site address] , [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/2264, 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 drawing nos 410(PL2)00 [name], 410(PL2)01 [name], 410(PL2)02 [name], 410(PL2)02 [name], 410(PL3)06 [name], 410(PL3)03 [name], 410(PL3)04 [name], 410(PL3)07 [name], 410(PL3)08 [name], 410(PL3)09 [name], 410(PL3)11 [name].

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the rear dormer window hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name] and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

The hereby submitted Tree Protection Plan ref. 410(PL3)40 [name] received 01/07/2025 shall be complied with for the duration of any works of the hereby approved development.

The hereby submitted Flood Risk Assessment Strategy received 16/07/2025 shall be complied with for the lifetime of the hereby approved development.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] ref.: 410(PL3)41 [name] received 01/07/2025 by [name].

Since the original permission was granted, the Council have adopted the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) (LP). In these circumstances, I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decision. The appeal has therefore been determined in accordance with Policy LP 28 of the LP.

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

The appeal site is a detached single storey dormer bungalow located towards the end of a cul-de-sac. To the rear of the dwelling is woodland which visually contains the rear of the appeal site from public views. The dwelling has a steep pitched roof with low eaves height which contains two dormer windows to the front. The rear of the dwelling has a large dormer window which extends across a significant proportion of the roof span. The surrounding area comprises a mix of detached dwellings and bungalows of varying scale and architectural design.

Planning permission was granted in 2025 under [name]. PA25/1869 for a single storey rear extension and alterations. I observed that this permission has been implemented and is nearing completion. Further to the development approved under this permission, the appeal comprises the replacement of the front dormer windows, a replacement rear dormer and first floor extension.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) says that rear extensions should not dominate the existing house or its neighbours. With regards to roof extensions, it states that proposals should not dominate the original roof and that a significant area of the existing roof should be left beneath and to either side of new dormers.

The proposed first floor extension would run from the main roof of the host dwelling and be set down from its ridgeline by approximately 0.5m. It would project substantially beyond the existing roof profile of the host dwelling. However, the perceived massing would be reduced by the step back from the side elevation of the house and walls of the ground floor extension. As the proposed extension would occupy less than half the width of the original roof, even with the replacement dormer the original form of the building would remain legible, owing to the stepped back design and gap between the replacement dormer and first floor extension.

The first-floor extension would visually link the first floor with the ground floor extension, providing greater balance between the lower and upper parts of the house, while retaining the original form of the dwelling. Its scale and stepped back design ensure that it would not unduly dominate the rear of the house and would sit comfortably with the permitted ground floor extension. Taking all of this into account the proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The rear of the appeal dwelling is stepped back from the rear of no 7 and forward from that of No 3. Due to this alignment, the proposals would not be prominent when viewed from neighbouring dwellings or the wider public domain. I observed that No 3 has been extended to the rear and has a similar pitched roof gable to the appeal proposal. Therefore, the proposed development would not appear out of keeping with the scale and form of the varied styles of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed development would thereby result in limited harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The Council has raised concerns in relation to the proposed use of timber cladding to the replacement rear dormer. However, as the principle of the dormer is acceptable, I consider that this could be dealt with by condition.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the host property or surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy 28 of the LP, which amongst other things seeks to ensure that proposals are compatible with the local character.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions and where appropriate amended the wording to more closely align with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have also removed tailpieces to conditions that circumvent the statutory route to vary conditions or deprive interested parties of the opportunity to comment.

In order to meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement (1). I have imposed a condition relating to approved plans for the avoidance of doubt (2). I have attached a condition relating to the materials of the proposed dormer extensions in order to integrate with the original dwelling (3) In order to safeguard existing trees a condition is required to ensure development complies with the submitted Tree Protection Plan (5). Conditions are required in relation to the flood risk assessment strategy (6) and fire risk strategy (7) in order to ensure the safety of residents.

I consider that it is reasonable and necessary to include a condition to remove permitted development rights (4), for [name] (additions to the roof of a dwellinghouse) and C (any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse) in the interests of the residential amenity of neighbouring residents with regards to privacy.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.