Loft conversion, hip to gable with two rear dormers & sun terrace to rear outrigger & 2no. rooflights to front roof slope

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 November 2025 by E Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000383 52 Mortlake Road, Richmond Upon Thames, Kew TW9 4AT • 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 & Mrs Anthony Shortt against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames • The application Ref is PA25/0984 • The development proposed is loft conversion, hip to gable with two rear dormers & sun terrace to rear outrigger & 2no. rooflights to front roof slope. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matters 3. Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) (LP). The main parties were aware of what the emerging policies were at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed since their formal adoption. Therefore, I have had regard to the most up to date development plan. 4. The appeal statement includes a proposed revision to the scheme to remove the ‘sun terrace’ element from the proposal scheme, retaining the flat roof. No revised plans have been provided in relation to this and the removal of the ‘sun terrace’ element from the proposal description would result in a substantial difference to the appeal considered by the Council and interested parties. Consequently, as it would result in a different proposal, I have not considered the suggested amendment as part of the appeal. Main Issue 5. The main issues of the proposal are: i) Its effect on the character and appearance of the area; and ii) Its effect on the living conditions of 50 Mortlake Road (No 50), with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance and outlook. Appeal Decision 6000383 2 Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 6. 52 Mortlake Road is a semi-detached property which features a hipped roof and adjoins 54 Mortlake Road which has previously undergone alterations, resulting in the original hipped roof being replaced with a gable ended roof. The side of the road that the appeal site sits on consists of predominantly hipped roof properties, with rear outriggers which largely retain a hipped roof form. Some properties have undergone a hip to gable roof conversion, and there are various styles and sizes of rear dormer. The design and form of properties on the other side of the road is different, as there is a mixture of pitched and half-hipped roofs and feature gable ends to their forward projecting elements. 7. The proposed rear dormer would sit close to the edges of the roof with minimal set in from the eaves. The combination of this with the dormer’s overall scale and flat roof form and the proposed roof conversion would cumulatively result in a bulky and discordant addition to the host property. While the roof extension would obscure the original hipped roof of the dwelling, the evidence before me is that this element already benefits from permission. However, this proposal would also remove the hipped roof from the outrigger, which is a characteristic feature of this row despite the various roof alterations. 8. The proposed rear dormer would be highly visible from both neighbouring properties and the public realm from nearby side roads. Consequently, the proposal would dominate the original roof and would not be sensitive to or compatible with the existing character or appearance of the local area. The glazing to the roof terrace would also be uncharacteristic for the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would not be compatible with the local character. 9. There is a similar rear roof extension with a terrace to the rear of No 58, however that the only one of this size in the row, and it stands out from the other smaller dormers which retain the characteristic hipped roof of the outrigger. Furthermore, the Council advises that most of those permissions were granted under previous policies, which may not have been the same as they are now. Moreover, the existence of similar extensions does not justify further development to be built where the design is not of the high quality required by adopted policy. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy 28 of the LP (2025) which, amongst other matters, requires that proposals are compatible with the local character including materials, scale, massing, height and form. 11. The proposal also fails to accord with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks to ensure developments are visually attractive and maintain a strong sense of place. Furthermore, it would not follow the guidance on roof extensions in the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) which seeks to protect local character. Living Conditions 12. The garden of No 50 is currently overlooked by first floor windows in neighbouring properties, however there are no existing windows at roof level with a clear view of Appeal Decision 6000383 3 the garden. The proposed roof terrace would create views over the garden of No 50 from an elevated position. Direct overlooking would be mitigated by the proposed privacy screen, however the obscured glass would still allow people sat or stood on the roof terrace to be appreciated. The proposed terrace is likely to be used for prolonged periods and in this elevated position adjacent to the dividing boundary, it would introduce a strong perception of being overlooked for users of the garden of No 50. Therefore, the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 50. 13. A similar roof terrace is present at No 58, however this permission was granted under a now superseded development plan. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the relationship with its neighbour or the method of screening are the same as proposed here. It is not therefore directly comparable and does not justify the harm identified. 14. Whilst it is likely the proposed sun terrace will be used as a seating area, any noise and disturbance arising from it would be at high level and not close to any habitable room windows. It is therefore unlikely to have a greater impact on the living conditions of neighbours than might arise from similar activities taking place in the existing garden area. Therefore, I consider the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 50 in relation to noise and disturbance. 15. The current outlook from the garden of No 50 is of the tall, dominant dwellings. The proposal would increase the bulk and massing of the appeal property at roof level, however it would not bring the built form significantly closer to the garden than at present. The glazed screen of the terrace would allow light through and therefore would not be seen as a solid mass. Therefore, given the high level and positioning of the proposed dormer and terrace, they would not harmfully change the outlook from No 50, and as such would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers in that respect. 16. Accordingly, while the proposal would not have harmful adverse effects in respect of outlook, noise and disturbance, it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 50 with regard to privacy. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy 46 of the LP (2025) which, amongst other matters, supports development where it ensures that acceptable standards of privacy are retained, and states that developments, including balconies, should not result in unacceptable overlooking or perceived overlooking. 17. The proposal also fails to accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires developments to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 18. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposal is being sought to provide additional internal living space to meet the needs of the household, I have not been provided with any information to demonstrate that this increase in internal space cannot be achieved through other means that have a less harmful impact upon both the character and appearance of the area and neighbouring living conditions. 19. Reference has been made in submissions to a previously approved application 20/2816/PS192, which permitted a loft conversion with a rear dormer but without a balcony. I have not been provided with further details or plans regarding this Appeal Decision 6000383 4 previous permission, therefore I cannot make any detailed comparison with the effects of the appeal scheme. Conclusion and Recommendation 20. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR