Loft conversion - erection of hipped box dormer to the rear matching local character with addition of roof lights to the front roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000084 22 Park Drive, East Sheen, London SW14 8RD • 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 McKinlay against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/2142/HOT. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “Loft conversion - erection of hipped box dormer to the rear matching local character with addition of roof lights to the front roof. Erection of part single part two storey rear and side extension. Addition of basement under new rear of the property together with replacement of external windows throughout”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Additional plans were submitted at the appeal stage1, relating to an application for pre-application advice, which the appellants have put forward for consideration as part of this appeal. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage. 3. The additional plans relate to changes which would alter the design aesthetic of the proposed development, which is a matter which interested parties commented on at application stage. In the interests of fairness to interested parties, I have considered the same plans that the Council determined the planning application on. To do otherwise would deprive those who should have been consulted on the change, the opportunity of such consultation. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises 22 Park Drive (No 22), a 2-storey semi-detached traditionally-designed dwelling, with a coherent and legible architectural form. Park Drive is a verdant street, which predominantly consists of 2-storey semi-detached dwellings of a broadly similar size and scale. 1 Appendix One of Appeal Supplementary Evidence (2025) Appeal Decision 6000084 2 6. The proposed first-floor rear extension would have a width greater than half the width of No 22 as existing. This element of the proposed development would conflict with paragraph 5.2.1 of the House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2015) which provides that, amongst other things, 2-storey side and rear extensions should not be greater than half the width of the original building, to ensure the extension does not over-dominate the building’s original scale and character. 7. Moreover, a proposed L-shaped roof extension would sit above the first-floor rear extension. Due to its size and scale, it would add considerable additional bulk to the rear elevation of No 22. In particular, its roof would project significantly beyond the main rear roof slope of No 22 as existing, including beyond the eaves of the main roof. Little original roof space would remain around the proposed L-shaped roof extension. 8. In combination, these works would overwhelm the existing roof profile of No 22. As a consequence, the proposed development would not be sympathetic to the existing architectural form of No 22. Its currently legible and modest appearance would be undermined. Whilst 24 Park Drive (No 24) benefits from an extension at first-floor level of similar proportions to that proposed at No 22, due to its height and its depth of projection from the rear roof slope the proposed L-shaped roof extension would appear appreciably bulkier than the existing roof-level extension at No 24. No 22 as extended would appear overdeveloped in comparison with No 24. 9. I observed that, although several nearby dwellings on the site’s side of Park Drive have been extended at roof level, and 2-storey side and rear extensions are present on properties on Park Drive, 3-storey rear extensions are the exception rather than the rule in the local area. Although No 22 would retain its garage and side alleyway, due to the unduly dominant and prominent extensions proposed, which would subsume much of the original form of No 22 when seen from the rear, No 22 as extended would appear out-of-keeping with the pattern of development in the area. 10. The presence of soft landscaping in and around the site cannot be relied upon to effectively screen the proposed development in perpetuity, as this could be removed at any time, for a variety of reasons, including disease and / or personal preference. This factor would not alter the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. 11. I have had regard to the numerous examples of extensions referred to by the appellants, which include loft conversions of various sizes and shapes. I note that, although the examples referred to demonstrate that the proposed development would share specific design features which are similar to the examples referred to, only a minority of the examples cited relate to 3-storey extensions on the site’s side of Park Drive, which No 22 shares its primary visual relationship with. 12. The majority of the examples referred to do not appear to involve such a significant degree of expansion of a dwelling as is proposed at No 22. In particular, the roof- level extensions at 16 Park Drive and 28 Park Drive do not protrude beyond the eaves of the main roof, as is proposed at No 22, which has mitigated their prominence. As all these examples, whilst of some relevance, are not directly Appeal Decision 6000084 3 comparable with the proposed development when considered as a whole, they do not change my findings on this main issue. 13. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy LP 1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (adopted 2018) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality. Other Matters 14. The emerging policy referred to in the Council’s decision notice is identical with respect to the relevant parts of the adopted Local Plan quoted above. Therefore, whilst it follows that the proposed development would also conflict with the terms of the emerging policy, this is a neutral matter, which does not weigh either for or against the proposed development. 15. The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application, including with respect to the impartiality and transparency of the application process, is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. Rather, this appeal decision relates to the planning merits of the proposed development. 16. The proposed development would modernise No 22, including by providing improved insulation, which would benefit its current and future occupiers. As this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it attracts little weight in support of the proposed development. 17. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations (including the representations of all interested parties), I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR