Double storey & part single storey flank extension together with first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 December 2019 by Thomas Courtney BA(Hons) MA Decision by Andrew Owen MA BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 January 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/19/3238038 76 Priory Road, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2PN • 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 Ms A. De Oliveira against the decision of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Council. • The application Ref 19/1331/HOT, dated 21 April 2019, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2019. • The development proposed is a double storey & part single storey flank extension together with first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matter 3. On my site visit I observed that the first-floor rear extension comprising a bedroom with Juliet balcony has been constructed. The ground floor side extension comprising the small WC has also been constructed. These works appear to reflect previous planning permissions. Therefore, this appeal focuses on the two-storey side extension aspect. Main Issues 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling located on the northern side of Priory Road within an established residential area characterised by a mix of semi-detached properties and terraced properties. The appeal property lies at the end of two small blocks of symmetrical short terraces. 6. The proposal would result in a two-storey side extension with a dual hipped roof on the eastern flank of the dwelling. The roof form would appear irregular and unnatural. Its odd and complex shape would detract from the simple Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/19/3238038 2 design of the original dwelling, unbalance the scale and roof form of the property and would disrupt the consistency of the block of terraces. Overall it would constitute poor design. 7. Furthermore, it would be visible from the road and from neighbouring properties and from these positions the proposal would appear awkward and its incongruity would erode the symmetry and rhythm of the street scene. 8. I note the appellant’s reference to appeal ref. APP/L5810/D/19/3221916 relating to a previous proposal for this property. However, I have not been provided with the full details of this scheme and therefore cannot attest the extent to which the proposal addresses previous elements of concern. 9. I therefore find the proposed two-storey side extension would not be compatible with the existing dwelling and would be a visually discordant feature that would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed development would conflict with Policy LP1 of the Richmond Local Plan (2018), the Council’s Hampton Village Planning Guidance SPD 2017, the ‘House Extensions and External Alterations’ SPD (2015), and the National Planning Policy Framework which together seek to ensure proposals are well designed and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area in which they lie. Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Thomas Courtney APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR