Two-storey side extension along with a single-storey extension at the rear (C3). The design includes a new garage door and bay window at the front whilst proposing materials to match the existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 November 2017 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3182507 9 Cheyne Avenue, Twickenham TW2 6AN  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 Merivale Investments against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 16/4771/HOT was refused by notice dated 25 May 2017.  The development proposed is described as the erection of a two-storey side extension along with a single-storey extension at the rear (C3). The design includes a new garage door and bay window at the front whilst proposing materials to match the existing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. While the appellant has described the proposal as in the above heading, the Council has additionally referred to alterations to boundary treatment, a new dropped kerb and to paving the front and rear gardens of the appeal property. From my inspection of the plans, the Council’s description more accurately reflects the development sought. I have assessed the proposal on that basis. 3. The main parties have referred to policies within the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan: Publication Version for Consultation (LP). As the LP is in draft form, its policies may change prior to adoption. Therefore, I attach limited weight to the LP. Main issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development, firstly, on the character and appearance of the local area; and secondly, on highway safety for users of Cheyne Avenue. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey semi-detached house that occupies a prominent corner plot at the junction of Cheyne Avenue and Sheringham Avenue within a predominantly residential area. In the vicinity of the site, dwellings vary in size, type and style. Consequently, there is variety to existing development in the local street scenes of which No 9 forms part. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3182507 2 6. Part of the appeal scheme is to enlarge the host building with a 2-storey side extension and a single storey rear addition. The new side extension would be set back from the front and rear of the main building with a ridge that would be set down from that of the existing dwelling. For both side and rear extensions, the external materials would match the host building. 7. Nevertheless, the proposal would significantly enlarge the footprint of the existing dwelling and noticeably add to its scale and mass. The width of the new side addition would more than one half of the original house, in conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), House Extensions and External Alterations. The long ridgeline of the finished building, which would run parallel to Cheyne Avenue, would visually accentuate the width and scale of the new side extension, as would the rooflines above the ground floor front projection. In views from Cheyne Avenue, the new side extension would draw the eye because it would appear as an overly large addition. 8. Given the scale and bulk of the proposal, it could not reasonably be described as subservient, as the appellant states. The additional new built form would overwhelm the traditional style and more modest proportions of the appeal dwelling. It would result in a conspicuously large and bulky house even amongst the varied built form along Cheyne Avenue and Sheringham Avenue, which include many properties that have been extended and altered. 9. On the first main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy CP 7 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policy DM DC 1 of the Development Management Plan (DMP). These policies aim to ensure that development is of high design quality and respects local character. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which emphasises the importance of securing high quality design and notes that development should add to the overall qualities of an area. Highway safety 10. A new crossover would be introduced along part of the site’s frontage to Cheyne Avenue, which would result in motorists either turning into or out of the site close to the junction with Sheringham Avenue. According to the Council, this element of the appeal scheme would conflict with its SPD, Front Garden and Other Off Street Parking Standards, because the new crossover would be within 10-metres of a road junction. The appellant does not dispute this. The SPD explains that road safety is compromised by the proximity of a private access to a road junction due to the potential for conflicting traffic movements. In this case, the number of vehicle movements using the new crossover would be relatively modest. Even so, other drivers and pedestrians might misinterpret such manoeuvres given the close proximity of the crossover to the road junction that could lead to accidents. 11. A low-level boundary feature would be provided around the front and side of the site, the height of which could be restricted by condition to ensure adequate visibility of others, particularly pedestrians. While this restriction would ensure adequate visibility to one side of the site’s access, it would not do so on the other side because the splay would cut across the frontage of the attached property. This adjacent land is shown on the drawings to be outside the site and there is nothing before me to confirm that the appellant owns or controls it. In those circumstances, a condition to restrict the boundary Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3182507 3 treatment would not be enforceable. While the frontage of this neighbouring property is largely open, there would be nothing to preclude the owners from erecting a solid boundary feature below a certain height or place items at the front of their house that would restrict or impede the visibility of footway users for drivers exiting the site. It is not certain that either would come to pass but the possibility adds to the harm to highway safety that I have identified. 12. At the site visit, I saw several examples of properties with dropped kerbs near to the junction between Cheyne Avenue and Sheringham Avenue, some of which rely on vehicles reversing onto or from the highway. I am unaware of the detailed circumstances of these arrangements most of which were far from ideal with regard to highway safety. These examples do not persuade me that the appeal scheme, which would add to highway danger, should therefore be accepted. 13. On the second main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety for users of Cheyne Avenue. As such, it conflicts with DMP Policies DM TP 6 and DM TP 8. These policies require new development to, amongst other things, improve the safety of the pedestrian environment and provide sufficient off street parking to avoid an unacceptable impact on local traffic conditions. It would also be at odds with the guidance in the Council’s SPD Front Garden and Other Off Street Parking Standards for the reasons given. Other matters 14. The appeal scheme would enable off street vehicle parking to be provided at the front of the property. It would also provide additional living space that would improve the living conditions of future occupiers. The appeal scheme would also make efficient use of the appeal property. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified in relation to the main issues. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to the absence of objections from others, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR