Replace current ground floor side extension with ground and first floor side extension set back from the original house at the front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2019 by Jamie Reed DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3213794 2 Cassilis Road, Twickenham TW1 1RU • 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 and Mrs Chloe Chandra-rajan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. • The application Ref 18/1738/HOT, dated 22 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 July 2018. • The development proposed is described as ‘replace current ground floor side extension with ground and first floor side extension set back from the original house at the front. First floor to be set back from the original house at the back and ground floor side extension to be extended into the back garden. The purpose of the changes to the ground floor extension are to provide a bedroom and accessible bathroom for an elderly relative with increasing mobility issues’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area, and; • The effect of the development upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents by way of outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a 2 storey semi-detached dwelling house of pitched roof design, located on the corner where Cassilis Road meets Heathcote Road and the cul-de-sac, Nicol Close. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. The appeal property currently has a single storey extension to its side, which is built up to the shared boundary of 1 Nicol Close. The dwellings in Nicol Close are of a more modern terraced townhouse design and are 3 storeys in height. 4. The 2 storey side extension element of the proposal would be constructed right up to the shared boundary and would feature a flat roof design. I note that the Council consider the proposal would introduce a terracing effect and would result in an overbearing and dominant form of development that would be Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3213794 2 contrary to the Richmond-upon-Thames House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 5. Whilst the 2 storey side extension is not set back from the shared boundary by the recommended 1 m prescribed in the SPD, I noted on my visit that a narrow walkway that would be difficult to develop would remain to the side of 1 Nicol Close which would prevent terracing in the future. The extension would also be subservient in scale; being set back and lower in height than the both the appeal property and its aforementioned neighbour. 6. Whilst the measures described above assist in breaking up and reducing the massing of the front elevation, it would still nonetheless be incongruous within the streetscene, due to its flat roofed design. Such a design would introduce an alien feature into the streetscape that would be at odds with the other buildings in this location. Consequently, for this reason the 2 storey side extension element of the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and contrary to Policy LP1 of the Richmond-upon-Thames Local Plan (LP) and the SPD, which require developments to be of a high quality design that relates well to their host property and the context of their area. Living conditions 7. Adjoining the rear of the 2 storey side extension, a single storey rear extension of flat roofed design approximately 3 metres in height is proposed. This would also be constructed along the shared boundary and would extend approximately 4.8 m beyond the rear of the appeal property. At present the boundary enclosure in this location measures approximately 2 m in height. The resultant increase in height to 3 m for a distance of 4.8 m along the shared boundary in this location would therefore introduce a feature that would have an overbearing impact upon outlook when viewed from 1 Nicol Close. Consequently, the single storey rear extension element of the proposal would be contrary to Policy LP8 of the LP, which requires development to not be visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact as a result of their height, massing or siting, including through creating a sense of enclosure. 8. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s view that an outbuilding of a similar size could be constructed in this location under Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, such structures would not be attached to the appeal property and as such would not provide the same level of accommodation, nor would they be of such a height along the common boundary. Therefore, any such alternative proposal would not be directly comparable to that which is before me. Other Matters 9. It is noted that the Council has advised that an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment was not submitted with the application. As a result, this makes the proposal contrary to Policy LP21 of the LP which covers such matters. However, as I am dismissing for other reasons, this matter is not determinative. Conclusion 10. Whilst it is acknowledged that appellant wishes to extend their property in order to provide a bedroom and accessible bathroom for an elderly relative, I do not consider these benefits to outweigh the harm that the development would bring to the character and appearance of the area and to the living Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3213794 3 conditions of neighbouring residents. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jamie Reed INSPECTOR