Double storey side extension and single storey rear orangery

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2017 by H Butcher BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 23rd November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3178173 57 Longford Close, Hampton, TW12 1AD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Kevin Franklin against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 17/0631/HOT, dated 14 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 April 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey side extension and single storey rear orangery. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the original house. Reasons 3. 57 Longford Close is one half of a pair of semi-detached properties which sits side on to a public footpath. The House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (May 2015) (SPD) sets out the Council’s design principles on matters such as side extensions. It advises that the ridge of side extensions should be set lower than that on the main house and that two storey side extensions should not be greater than half the width of the original building. 4. The appeal site has a planning history which includes permission for a two storey side extension (ref 16/3637/HOT). This permission broadly meets with the above design advice being set down from the main ridge line by 0.9m and the first floor of the extension being no wider than half of the width of the main house. As such it would appear as a subservient addition to the property. 5. The side extension before me now, however, would be wider than the width of the original property at both ground and first floor. The set down from the ridgeline has also been greatly reduced to only 0.25m. Consequently the extension would appear much bulkier overall and as such would compete with and dominate the original house. Furthermore the two storey flank of the extension would, more or less, directly abut the footpath to the side giving it a cramped appearance in relation to its plot. This would be readily apparent Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3178173 2 from the footpath and would further highlight the oversized nature of the extension. 6. For these reasons the side extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the original house and as such would be contrary to the SPD and Policy DM DC 1 of the Council’s Development Management Plan (2011) which requires new development to be compatible with local character in terms of, amongst other things, scale, height, massing and proportions. I note the property does not fall within a Conservation Area nor is it a designated Building of Townscape Merit. Nevertheless, it is proper to reinforce local distinctiveness as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. 7. Reference is made to 65 Longford Close but this property does not appear to have been extended in the same way as that proposed. 63 Longford Close, however, has a two storey side extension, but the width of this does not exceed half of that of the main house. It is also set well off of the side boundary. Other two storey extensions in the area are also referred to which are wide and extend up to side boundaries at two storeys. However, I have not been provided with full details of these therefore I cannot be sure what the exact circumstances surrounding these developments were. In any event, in my opinion, they are not so numerous so as to have completely altered the character of the area. 8. I note both parties’ comments about symmetry. However, in my view, any two storey side extension to No 57 would upset the symmetry of the pair of semi- detached properties as there is not the space for the adjoining property to extend in a similar manner. My findings in this respect do not, however, alter my conclusions above. Finally, whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns in respect of the pre-application advice they received I have to consider the appeal before me on its own planning merits. 9. The appeal is dismissed. Hayley Butcher INSPECTOR