Erection of single storey rear extension and side infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visits made on 17 June and 19 August 2025 by O Marigold BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2025. Appeal Ref: 6000060 12 Glebe Road, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 0EA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Fothergill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/2461/HOT. • The development proposed is erection of single storey rear extension and side infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed single storey rear extension and side infill extension, at 12 Glebe Road, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 0EA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2461/HOT, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matters 2. My site visit was initially arranged for 17 June 2025, but unfortunately an incorrect date was given to the appellants, and so I was unable to gain access to the rear of the property. I was able to visit again and see this clearly on 19 August 2025. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area, including its effect on the Barnes Common Conservation Area (CA), within which the site lies, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 14 Glebe Road (No. 14) in respect of outlook. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA includes large red and yellow stock Victorian and Edwardian houses, with decorative moulded details and elaborate entrance canopies. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the character of its buildings, spaces and street scenes. The appeal site consists of an attractive terraced dwelling with accommodation over three storeys. It is identified as a Building of Townscape Merit, and makes a positive contribution to the CA. Appeal Decision 6000060 2 5. The property has a lengthy rear two-storey outrigger and side infill. It is proposed to further extend the dwelling at single storey height to the side and rear. The height of the extensions would ensure their subservience to the host dwelling. The immediate area features large rear extensions, and the proposal would extend the appeal property by a similar length to others hereabouts. Being to the rear, there would be few if any publicly obtainable views of it. For these reasons, the proposal would not appear out of place, including when seen from adjoining properties such as No. 14. 6. The Council’s reason for refusal alleges that the development would be contrary to the Barnes Village Planning Guidance, and the Barnes Common Conservation Area Statement and Study. However, beyond the refusal reason, I have no further evidence of conflict with this guidance. Indeed, the Council’s Officer Report confirms compliance with them. The House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015, provides limits on the height and depth of rear extensions. That said, this is to ensure adequate outlook for neighbours, which I shall consider below. 7. In light of my findings above, the proposal would preserve the significance of the appeal building and the CA as a whole. It would not therefore harm the character or appearance of the area. Nor do I find conflict with policy LP8 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, or policy 46 of the emerging Local Plan publication draft, both of which relate to amenity and living conditions. The proposal would similarly comply with the Act. Living Conditions 8. No. 14 is a terraced dwelling adjacent to the appeal site and also has a two-storey rear projection. For terraced dwellings, the SPD advises that single storey rear extensions are usually acceptable if the projection is no further than three metres deep. Beyond that length, extensions should have an eaves height no higher than 2.2 metres. A previous side infill extension1 complied with these requirements. 9. The extension now proposed would replace a sloping mono-pitched roof with a flat roof. It would have a taller eaves height, over a greater depth. It would exceed the requirements of the SPD, although this advises that the final assessment depends on the circumstances of the site. 10. As a result of existing extensions, much of the rear area of No. 14 closest to the house already has lengthy built form on either side. Adjacent to the shared boundary, the proposal would have a taller height than existing, and would extend further into the rear garden. 11. Even so, the increase in height and mass would be fairly small compared to the current situation, and not significantly taller than the boundary treatments. No. 14 has a garden of reasonable length, further limiting the effects of the proposal on its occupiers. As a matter of planning judgement, I consider that the proposed extension would not result in an unacceptable level of enclosure or intrusion for the occupiers of No. 14. 12. For these reasons, the development would accord with Local Plan policy LP8. This seeks to ensure that proposals are not visually intrusive, overbearing or create a 1 LPA reference 07/2540/HOT Appeal Decision 6000060 3 sense of enclosure, having regard to the SPD. It would also accord with policy 46 of the emerging Local Plan publication draft, which makes similar requirements. Conditions 13. The Council has provided a list of conditions, which I have assessed and where necessary amended, having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring adherence to the approved plans is necessary for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the external materials must be those specified. To ensure the privacy of nearby occupiers, use of the roof of the extensions needs to be restricted to emergency and maintenance purposes. Adherence to the Fire Safety Strategy is necessary for safety reasons. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. O Marigold INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6000060 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 169_001_P01, 169_002_P01, 169_101_P01, 169_102_P01, 169_103_P01, 169_301_P01, 169_302_P01, 169_303_P01, 169_304_P01. 3) The external materials used in the development hereby approved shall be those specified in the application form. 4) The roof of the extensions hereby approved shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of escape in emergency or for maintenance of the buildings. 5) The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Strategy dated October 2024. End of Conditions