Erection of first floor side extension to dwelling house

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: 27TH May 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000131 232 Hanworth Road, Hampton, TW12 3EP  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 A Singh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.  The application Ref is 24/2862/HOT  The development proposed is erection of first floor side extension to dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the area, which lies within the Hanworth Road Conservation Area (CA), and on number 230 Hanworth Road (No. 230), identified as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM), and  the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 230, in respect of light and outlook. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA consists primarily of large, detached dwellings on Hampton Road, many with similarities in their detailing, materials and garden settings. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the attractive character of its buildings, spaces and street scenes. 4. The appeal site consists of a two-storey dwelling with a side 1.5 storey projection. It is set well back from the road, perpendicular to it, and is immediately behind No. 230. Although not unattractive, the appeal building has little architectural merit and makes only a neutral contribution to the CA. Although also of two storeys, No. 230 has a modest height, with an attractive form, detailing and materials, and is positioned close to its rear boundary. No. 230 makes a positive contribution to the CA. As a BTM, it constitutes a non-designated heritage asset. 5. The proposal seeks to raise the eaves and ridge heights of the existing 1.5 storey wing closest to No. 230. This would provide a taller and larger room containing a Appeal Decision 6000131 2 bedroom. It would have a similar pitch to the existing roof, and a lower ridge height than the main part of the dwelling, thus maintaining a subservient appearance to its host. Its detailing and external materials would match the existing property. 6. Even so, the proposal would add large scale and bulk to the existing building. Despite a small degree of setback, it would be close to the dwelling at No. 230, as well as to its limited outdoor space at the rear. Consequently, the increase in height and mass resulting from the proposal would have a dominating and harmful visual impact on No. 230 and its surroundings, including when seen from Hanworth Road. This would undermine their attractive character and degree of spaciousness, thus diminishing the significance of this part of the CA. 7. For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole and the BTM. It would therefore conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires an acceptable scale, bulk and massing. It would also conflict with Local Plan policies LP3 and LP4, which give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets and their significance, and seek to preserve BTMs. For the same reasons, the proposal would not accord with the similar requirements of emerging Publication Plan policies 28, 29 and 30, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including paragraph 216. 8. In the language of the Framework, the harm to the CA would be less than substantial. I will therefore weigh this harm against the public benefits of the proposal, below. Living Conditions 9. No. 230 has windows and rooflights close to and in some cases facing towards the area of the proposed extension. Although the proposal would be set back slightly, and have a sloping roof, it would still be close to and visible from these windows. I have already identified the additional scale and mass that would result from the proposal. Little substantive evidence, such as daylight and sunlight calculations, has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would be acceptable in respect of these matters. 10. Consequently, I am concerned that the proposal would have an overbearing impact, and would reduce the amount of light available to these windows and the rooms within. As such, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 230, in respect of light and outlook. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy LP8, which requires proposals to protect the amenities of occupants of adjoining properties, including standards of sunlight and daylight, and avoiding overbearing effects. Other Matters 11. The proposal would improve the internal accommodation within the dwelling. However, as this benefit is essentially a private one, I give it limited positive weight. Accordingly, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA, or my concerns regarding neighbouring living conditions. Appeal Decision 6000131 3 Planning Balance and Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, there would be conflict with the Development Plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. O Marigold INSPECTOR