Alterations to the existing semi-detached house to include additional floor space, rooflights to front and rear elevations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 October 2020 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 November 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/20/3247358 64A Tudor Road, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NF • 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 M Kowalski against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref 19/2362/HOT, dated 30 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 28 November 2019. • The development proposed is alterations to the existing semi-detached house to include additional floor space, rooflights to front and rear elevations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to the existing semi-detached house to include additional floor space, rooflights to front and rear elevations at 64A Tudor Road, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/2362/HOT, dated 30 July 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; 0463 A1; 0436 A2; 0463 A3 Rev A; 0463 A4 Rev B; 0463 A5 Rev B; 0463 A6 Rev A; 0463 A7 Rev A; 0463 A8 Rev A; 0463 A9; 0457 A1 and 0457 A2. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be those specified on the approved drawings. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window at first floor level in the side/north elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of this window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Procedural Matter 2. Although the Planning Officer’s report considered the extent of the works to fall outside the scope of extensions and alterations to a dwelling house, the Council did not change the application procedure. The appeal application was formally Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/20/3247358 2 determined by the Council as a householder application and, as a consequence, a householder appeal was submitted by the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, being determined based upon being a householder scheme because it involves alterations and enlargement to a dwelling house rather than the creation of an additional or new dwelling through demolition of an existing property. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached 2-storey dwelling located within a primarily residential area which contains a mix of dwelling types and sizes. The property is unusual in its design because it is not reflective of the character and appearance of the neighbouring dwellings, including the other semi-detached dwelling. The Council’s Hampton Village Planning Guidance identifies the property is within Character Area 11 which is characterised by regularly arranged residential streets in generous plots. There is no specific commentary concerning the property. 5. The proposed development comprises alterations to the property which increases its scale, bulk and mass and remodels its appearance to such an extent that the character and appearance of the host property would be lost. As claimed by the Council, the scale of the proposed alterations to the property would not represent subordinate extensions and would result in a significant change to its appearance. As such, the appeal scheme would not accord with the general design aims of the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 6. However, the SPD can only be guidance and cannot reflect every eventuality. Further, the SPD does promote continuity by extensions being in character with the neighbourhood, including looking at a street as a whole. The appeal scheme would reflect this general guidance because the design, bulk and scale resulting property would relate to its existing context by being compatible with the character and appearance of this residential street. Although the alterations are not subordinate in scale, the resulting remodelled property would reflect the character and appearance of other 2-storey dwellings along the street. Further, the proposed development would create a symmetrically designed and balanced pair of semi-detached dwellings. The use of the external materials specified by the appellant on the drawings would sympathetically complement the existing house and other dwellings and can be secured by condition. 7. For these reasons, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would not conflict with Policy LP 1 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan. Amongst other matters, this policy requires development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and to be compatible with local character including how it relates to its existing context, including character and appearance. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/20/3247358 3 Other Matters 8. Local residents have raised a number of matters concerning the effect of the proposed development on their living conditions and on-street parking provision. However, there are no reasons to disagree with the Council’s assessment of these matters. Any overlooking and potential loss of privacy to the occupiers of a neighbouring property associated with a proposed side facing window could be controlled by the Council’s suggested condition. Conditions 9. The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the test in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For reasons of clarity, a condition is necessary for the appeal scheme to be developed in the accordance with the approved drawings. It would also be necessary for a condition to require the external materials to be those stated on the approved drawings. As already identified, a condition to require obscured glazing and non-opening windows in the side elevation to prevent overlooking is necessary. 10. For the reasons given, and taking into account all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR