Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 June 2025 by O Marigold BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000160 36 Brookwood Avenue, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 0LR • 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 Rose Garner against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond. • The application Ref is 24/2579/HOT. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed single storey rear extension at 36 Brookwood Avenue, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 0LR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2579/HOT, subject to the conditions in the Schedule to this decision below. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The site consists of a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling. It is one of a row of dwellings of similar design, fronting onto one side of Brookwood Avenue. To the rear of these properties are single storey outriggers, including at number 36. The proposal seeks to extend this. 5. The House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015, advises that rear extensions should not dominate the existing house, and that its original appearance should be the starting point for any changes. 6. The tallest section of the proposal would be higher than the cil height of one of the first-floor rear windows. It would also not match the sloping mono-pitch roof of the rear outrigger at number 38 Brookwood Avenue (No. 38), or the existing outrigger at the appeal property itself. As such, it would result in a loss of symmetry between the semi-detached pair. Appeal Decision 6000160 2 7. Nevertheless, the height of the proposal where it adjoins No. 38 would be the same as existing. Furthermore, its depth would not extend beyond that of the existing outrigger, or of No. 38. As such, the proposal would still appear subservient to its host, and would not dominate it. Other properties nearby, at numbers 32 and 34 Brookwood Avenue, already have rear extensions. These also do not reflect traditional mono-pitch outriggers, and so the proposal would not appear out of place. 8. The SPD advises that single storey extensions to semi-detached properties are usually acceptable if they project out no further than 3.5 metres. Where the depth exceeds this amount, as here, the eaves height should be limited to 2.2 meters. Even where stepped down, the height of the proposal would not accord with this limitation. 9. That said, this part of the SPD guidance is intended to avoid harm to neighbouring amenity from an unacceptable sense of enclosure or intrusion. In this case, the Council does not allege harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers including in respect of these matters. Furthermore, the SPD makes clear that the final test of acceptability will depend upon the particular circumstances of the site. 10. For the reasons given, in the context of the site and its surroundings, the proposal would not appear incongruous or over-scaled. It would therefore maintain the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, requires proposals to respect local character, and to be assessed against the advice set out in the SPD. Emerging policy 28 of the Publication Draft makes the same requirement. Having undertaken this assessment, I have concluded that the proposal would be acceptable. It would therefore comply with these policies. Conditions 11. 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. It is also necessary to require that external materials are appropriate in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. To ensure the privacy of nearby occupiers, use of the roof of the extension needs to be restricted to emergency maintenance purposes. Adherence to the Fire Safety Strategy is necessary for safety reasons. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. O Marigold INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6000160 3 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: Site Location Plan, 202409-HB01 P01, 202409-HB02 P01, 202409-HB03 P01, 202409-HB04 P01. 3) No new external finishes, including fenestration and works of making good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing property, except where indicated otherwise on the submitted application form and/or approved drawings. 4) The roof of the building shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of escape in emergency or for maintenance of the building. 5) The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Strategy received on 12th November 2024. End of Conditions