Removal of existing garages and conservatory. Ground floor side and rear extensions. First floor right side extension. New front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 May 2025 by O Marigold BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000167 37 Acacia Road, Hampton, Richmond Upon Thames TW12 3DP • 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 Jonathan Soares against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/3244/HOT. • The development proposed is removal of existing garages and conservatory. Ground floor side and rear extensions. First floor right side extension. New front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The site consists of a two-storey dwelling and attached single-storey garage building. It lies within a street of suburban detached and semi-detached houses, many with gable roof features. The existing house is within a plot with a width larger than most in the road. Amongst other things, the proposal seeks to erect a first-floor extension over the length of the existing garage building, and forward of it. 4. This proposed extension would comply with some of the guidelines of the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015. These include having a ridge lower than the host dwelling, and being set back to the side and front. As such, the proposed extension would appear as an addition to the dwelling. 5. Even so, the SPD makes clear that such development should harmonise with the original appearance of the property. To avoid over-dominating the scale and character of the original dwelling, it advises that two-storey side extensions should not exceed half the width of the existing property. There is no dispute that the proposal would not accord with this requirement. 6. Moreover, the proposed first-floor extension would have an excessive length and includes an additional large front gable. These features, combined with the overall height, width, mass and bulk of the proposed extension, would not be subservient to the original house. Instead, it would appear disproportionate, over-dominant and Appeal Decision 6000167 2 out of place when seen in conjunction with the host property. Consequently, the proposal would harm the visual amenity of the dwelling and the wider area. 7. Nearby number 22 Acacia Road is also a dwelling within a wider plot. The property has been significantly extended, at a time when the Council had design guidance in force. However, this pre-dated the advice in the current SPD. Reference has been made to extensions to other properties in the wider area, said to be of greater than half the width of their hosts. That said, I have few details of these properties and extensions with which to make useful comparison. In any case, I have considered the proposal before me on its own merits. 8. For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires an acceptable scale, bulk and massing, assessed against the SPD. I give this conflict very significant negative weight. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the similar requirements of policy 28 of the emerging Publication Plan. Other Matters 9. The proposal would improve the internal accommodation within the dwelling, to make it a more usable family home. It would also result in higher thermal and environmental standards. However, as these benefits are essentially private ones, I give them limited positive weight. Planning Balance and Conclusion 10. For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. O Marigold INSPECTOR