Alterations to existing outbuildings

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: 3 June 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000099 2 Fielding Avenue, Twickenham TW2 5LY • 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 Julian Joyce against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/2182/HOT. • The development proposed is alterations to existing outbuildings. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the site and the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 Fielding Avenue, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. 2 Fielding Avenue (No 2) is located on an L-shaped plot in a principally residential area in Twickenham. This appeal relates to 2 existing outbuildings, located to the rear of No 2. These outbuildings are described on the submitted plans as a summerhouse/garage and a garage. The outbuildings face a narrow unadopted access road which serves 2 detached dwellings, along which a number of low-rise outbuildings are situated to the rear of the gardens of properties on Staines Road. To the rear of the garage is a timber shed, which is proposed to be demolished. 4. The existing outbuildings, and particularly the summerhouse/garage, appear as large buildings in comparison with the other mostly modestly-sized outbuildings present adjacent to the access road, including the brick garage adjacent to the site which serves the dwelling known as Fielding Close. 5. The proposed development would internally link the summerhouse/garage and the garage. The gable roof of the garage would be changed to a flat roof. The height of the garage would be increased, so that at its maximum point its height would match the height of the ridge of the existing summerhouse/garage. Hence, the garage would be noticeably taller than existing. Due to its increased bulk and massing, the altered garage would appear as a much more imposing building in the street scene than at present. Appeal Decision 6000099 2 6. The proposed flat roof would be formed over the garage and part of the summerhouse/garage. The west slope of the summerhouse/garage would be altered to form a valley to the front corner. These elements would ensure that the 2 existing outbuildings would be perceived as one building in the street scene. The large scale of the building in its residential context would then be evident. As an overly-large building in the street scene, with a tall and wide modern garage door, it would have an appearance more akin to a commercial unit rather than a domestic outbuilding. It would appear markedly out-of-keeping with the residential context of the site. As modestly-sized outbuildings are common in the vicinity, it would undermine the character of the area. 7. Although the altered garage would incorporate brickwork similar to the garage which serves Fielding Close, this would not adequately mitigate the adverse impacts identified, which relate more to the scale of the resulting building rather than its detailed design. The mature hedges and trees near the existing outbuildings would not sufficiently screen the resulting building from the access road. In any event, as these hedges and trees could be removed at any time, they cannot be relied upon to off-set the adverse impacts identified. 8. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the area. It would conflict with part A. of 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. 9. The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities). Living conditions 10. The summerhouse/garage is located adjacent to the far end of the side boundary which separates the site from the garden of 4 Fielding Avenue (No 4). The garage on site is located adjacent to the north-west corner of No 4’s garden. These outbuildings somewhat impede the outlook available from that garden area. A large caravan is situated slightly beyond the opposite corner of the far end of the rear garden of No 4, which also reduces the available outlook from No 4’s rear garden. 11. As mentioned on the first main issue above, the proposed development would increase the height of the garage and a flat roof would be formed over the garage and part of the summerhouse/garage. Consequently, the proposed development would increase the amount of built form in close proximity to No 4’s garden. The garage on site would also be extended adjacent to the rear boundary of No 4’s garden, so that it would span across and behind a portion of that rear boundary. It would rise significantly above the boundary fence at the rear of No 4’s garden. 12. The proposed development would therefore result in a dominating and imposing building situated in close proximity to the rear of No 4’s garden. This would further compromise the available outlook from the garden, making it much less pleasant Appeal Decision 6000099 3 to use. The living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 would be harmed as a result. The distance of the resulting building from the rear windows of No 4 would not alter the adverse impacts identified, which relate to the use of No 4’s rear garden rather than the use of No 4 itself. 13. The soft landscaping within the rear gardens of the site and No 4 cannot be relied upon to mitigate the adverse impacts identified, as these could be legitimately removed for any number of reasons, including personal preference, disease, or storm damage. This is not a matter which alters may findings on this main issue. 14. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4, with particular regard to outlook. It would conflict with part 3. of Policy LP 8 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, the Council will ensure that proposals are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact as a result of their height, massing or siting, including through creating a sense of enclosure. 15. The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 f) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 16. The proposed development would remove the gap between the summerhouse/garage and the garage which is presently too small to be useable. However, it has not been shown that a less harmful scheme than that proposed could not achieve the same aims. Little weight has been given to this matter in support of the proposed development. 17. The proposed development would allow for a ULEZ-compliant van to be stored, and would enhance the ease of use and security of the existing outbuildings. As these would mainly comprise private benefits, collectively they merit little weight in favour of the proposed development. 18. On both main issues, I have found that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan. As a matter of planning judgement I find that the relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR