Erection of two storey side part single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 9 March 2021 by R E Jones BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/21/3269033 434 Chertsey Road, Twickenham TW2 6LP • 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 David Shah against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/2658/HOT, dated 23 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 23 November 2020. • The development proposed is erection of two storey side part single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development used in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form. The Council’s Decision Notice and the Appeal Form both use a different description, but I have not been provided with confirmation that either of these amended descriptions have been agreed by both parties. Accordingly, I have taken the description from the original application form. I consider that no party is prejudiced through the use of this description. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect that the proposed extension would have on the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Reasons 4. The appeal dwelling is partially adjoined to its neighbour at No 436 Chertsey Road by a narrow archway feature that extends across a narrow walkway between the dwellings. Pairs of dwellings are similarly arranged along this part of Chertsey Road. Although No 436 has been extended to its side, this addition is set back and down from its ridge line to reveal the original form of the dwelling, whilst maintaining some symmetry with the appeal property, particularly in terms of the bay windows and projecting front gable. 5. This part of Chertsey Road is mostly characterised by linked pairs of dwellings that are set back from the road. The spaces between them are largely defined by side walkways or driveways that are separated from one another by boundary enclosures. These spaces are part of the prevailing character and provide a regular rhythm of development along the street while contributing to its attractive appearance. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/21/3269033 2 6. The proposed side extension would extend the existing roof eaves line of the dwelling right up to the boundary with No 432 Chertsey Road (No 432), while incorporating a hipped roof. The absence of a setback or stepping down from the ridge line of the dwelling increases the dwelling’s overall mass and bulk. Moreover, it would result in an addition that would appear awkward and unbalanced in relation to the linked dwelling at No 436 which has a more recessed and subordinate side extension. This would result in the dwelling appearing noticeably discordant from the street, while being at odds with other dwellings along this stretch of Chertsey Road. Consequently, I find that there would be harm incurred to the design and scale of the host dwelling along with the linked dwelling at No 436. 7. The proposed extension would extend across the existing side driveway and be built flush to the common boundary with No 432. It would substantially enclose the space between these two dwellings, leaving only the existing walkway running along the side of No 432. This would be at odds with the wider and relatively uniform gaps between the paired dwellings on this part of Chertsey Road. Consequently, the proposal would appear noticeably out of kilter and detrimental to the otherwise harmonious arrangement of spaces between properties. 8. I note that the Council considers that the loss of the gap between the appeal dwelling and No 432 would also result in a ‘terracing’ effect with that property. However, the walkway, albeit a narrow space would still be maintained between the two dwellings, thus ensuring that they would not appear to be seen to adjoin each other. Furthermore, the hipped roof constructions of the respective roofs would be angled away from one another, to create a gap that would prevent any undue terracing. Even though I do not agree with the Council on this issue, this does not eliminate my concerns raised by other elements of the proposal. 9. The appellant has referred to the existing garage which already extends up to the side boundary of the appeal dwelling. However, this is set behind the dwelling’s rear elevation, while being a flat roof, single storey structure. The proposal, in contrast is taller, set further forward and more prominently encloses the space between the appeal property and the neighbouring dwelling, when viewed from the street. Therefore, given these differences, I do not consider that this existing garage provides justification for the proposal’s siting on the common boundary. 10. Although the appellant contends that the pair of semi-detached dwellings at Nos 432 and 430 are similar to the appeal proposal, those properties differ in being more symmetrical in their appearance. Furthermore, the flank walls of those dwellings maintain a gap from the side boundary thus ensuring that the spacing between dwellings along Chertsey Road is maintained. Therefore, I do not consider that a direct comparison can be made with the appeal proposal, to justify its approval. 11. A further example, at No 276 Staines Road has been referred to. The appellant considers that this is similar to the appeal proposal, in terms of its proximity to the boundary. Yet, that addition differs in terms of its design, while located on a property on a different street where the character and spacing between dwellings is not the same as on Chertsey Road. Furthermore, that case was determined under older planning policies and guidance. In view of these Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/21/3269033 3 circumstances that example is not a direct comparison with the appeal scheme, and I have given it limited weight in my assessment. 12. For these reasons, therefore, the proposed development would introduce a discordant built form to the locality that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Consequently, in this regard, it would conflict with Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) and the House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. Together, these require proposals to be compatible with local character in terms of scale and proportions, while respecting spaces and gaps between dwellings. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R E Jones INSPECTOR