Described on the planning application form as ‘Rear and side extension with roof extension, new outbuilding and new double glazed windows and brick and stone cladding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2025 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 September 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000242 23 Melbourne Road, Teddington, Richmond Upon Thames TW11 9QX • 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 and Mrs Moultrie against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 25/0027/HOT. • The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘Rear and side extension with roof extension, new outbuilding and new double glazed windows and brick and stone cladding’. Decision 1. I decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action. Preliminary Matter 2. An interested party has drawn attention to discrepancies between the detail shown on the submitted floor plans and that shown on the elevation drawings. This includes a number of windows being shown on the floor plans which are not shown on the elevation drawings. The submissions do not include a block plan which accurately shows the location of the proposed outbuilding within the appeal site. In addition, the floor plans indicate that the first floor steps in from the north east side elevation but the elevation drawings indicate the north east side as a full width gable. 3. The views of both the Council and the appellant have been sought in this respect and I have taken the comments received into account in reaching this decision. Reasons 4. Article 7 (1) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires that an application for planning permission must be accompanied by plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development. There is an expectation that the plans accompanying any planning application are entirely clear and accurate both in terms of what is being proposed and how it would appear were the development to be constructed. 5. In order for me to allow the appeal proposal, I must be satisfied that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area and to undertake that assessment, I must be clear what the proposed development would look like. 6. However, there are a number of discrepancies between the submitted drawings. If the development were to be constructed as shown on the floor plans, it would not Appeal Decision 6000242 2 comply with the detail shown on the elevation drawings and vice versa. In addition, were the appeal to be allowed, it would not be possible to comply with a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, as these are contradictory. 7. To remedy the various conflicts between the submitted drawings, new drawings would be required. Whilst the appellant has sought to provide a set of revised drawings as part of the appeal, the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals - England1 advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that 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. In any case, it is likely that any revisions would need to be publicised in order to avoid procedural unfairness. A condition requiring the submission of revised drawings prior to starting any development on site would not be appropriate as this would sidestep the statutory process for the grant of planning permission. 8. Section 79(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that if during the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that planning permission for the development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, he may decline to determine the appeal. 9. The contradictory plans in the current submission mean that the proposal is unclear and the appellant would be unable to implement the permission in accordance with the approved drawings. Therefore, planning permission for the development could not have been granted by the Council. For these same reasons, I am not in a position to consider the planning merits of the case. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is invalid. Accordingly, I decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action. Alison Fish INSPECTOR 1 Updated 30 June 2025