London Borough of Richmond upon Thames appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Richmond upon Thames?
See selected local evidence on front walls, dormers and compatible design, then test it against your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 228 of 320
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 98
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 125
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 218
- of 228 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Richmond upon Thames LPA (51.442737, −0.312335). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames appeal findings
Walls, dormers and local character in Richmond upon Thames
Several selected extracts state the final finding without the earlier design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Walls and dormers found harmful
Replacing front walls and railings
The Inspector found the replacement wall and gates harmful, while village guidance promoted retaining united front-garden walls.
Dormer size and appearance
The dormer’s size and appearance were found harmful to the property and wider area.
Helped or needed
Richmond extensions: design and wider-area effects
Avoiding visual confusion in style
The Inspector said the extension would accord with SPD aims to avoid visual confusion in style and materials, despite technical breaches.
No harm to property and wider area
The loft conversion was found not to harm the property or wider area. The extract gives no design detail.
Acceptable effect on area character
The rear and side extensions were found to have an acceptable effect on the area’s character and appearance. The extract gives no design detail.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify a front wall, gate or dormer?
- Does it explain effects on the property and wider area?
- Does it question visual confusion in style or materials?
These Richmond upon Thames extracts are conclusion-led, so they do not show the full design evidence considered. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
17 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
ground floor rear & side extension and first floor side extension with boundary wall changes and addition of new skylight.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with Policy LP 1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (adopted 2018) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality, and with emerging Policy 28 of the Publication Local Plan which does not significantly differ from the relevant terms of Policy LP 1 of the adopted Local Plan.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
13 December 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
infill single storey rear extension, existing side extension front enlargement and first storey side/rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policy LP1 of the Local Plan2 where it requires proposals to be compatible with local character. While there would be technical breaches, the scheme would accord with SPD aims to avoid visual confusion in terms of style and materials.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
30 March 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a loft conversion including rear dormer roof extension and outrigger extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, notwithstanding any conflict with the SPD, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of No 24 or the wider area. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2024 to 2039), adopted in 2025, as far as it seeks to ensure development is compatible with local character. For the same reasons there would be no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy requirements for achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 10 · Source pages 2, 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
31 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to demolish the existing front garden wall and railings, and replace with a new brick wall with timber and metal gates with intercom and post- box.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and contrary to policy LP1 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan (2018) which seeks high-quality design and amongst other things compatibility with local character including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, views, local grain and frontages. There would also be conflict with Richmond and [address] Village Planning Guidance which promotes the retention and unity of the front garden walls.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
27 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a first-floor rear extension, loft conversion with new dormer and new front porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, by reason of the size and appearance of the dormer window, I find the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of No 34 and the wider area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy 28 of the [site address] Local Plan (2024 to 2039), adopted in 2025, as far as it seeks to ensure development is compatible with local character. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy requirements for achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3