Two-storey side extensions, part single/part 2 storey rear extension incorporating 2no. rooflights and a rear dormer within the extended roof, replacement windows and doors and new front porch following the demolition of the garage

Appeal Decision Site visit on 21 October 2025 by E Clifford BA (Hons) MA Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000385 3 Berwyn Road, Richmond Upon Thames TW10 5BP • 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 Pailthorpe against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/1445. • The development proposed is two-storey side extensions, part single/part 2 storey rear extension incorporating 2no. rooflights and a rear dormer within the extended roof, replacement windows and doors and new front porch following the demolition of the garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two-storey side extensions, part single/part 2 storey rear extension incorporating 2no. rooflights and a rear dormer within the extended roof, replacement windows and doors and new front porch following the demolition of the garage at 3 Berwyn Road, Richmond Upon Thames TW10 5BP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/1445, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not 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: Drawing Nos 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1001 Rev PL01 (Site Location Plan); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1003 Rev PL01 (Site Plan Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1004 Rev PL01 (Proposed Area Plans); 2405-CTD-PL3- GA-1010 Rev PL01 (Ground Floor Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1011 Rev PL01 (First Floor Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1012 Rev PL01 (Second Floor Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1013 Rev PL01 (Roof Plan Proposed); 2405- CTD-PL3-GA-1021 Rev PL01 (North Elevation Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA- 1022 Rev PL01 (Rear Elevation Proposed); 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1023 Rev PL01 (South Elevation Proposed) and 2405-CTD-PL3-GA-1020 Rev PL03 (Front elevation). 3) The development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Statement prepared by ‘Cameron Jones Planning’ submitted with the application unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority. 4) The proposed conservation style rooflight to the side roof slope facing 45 and 47 Sheen Common Drive shall either be non-openable and obscure glazed or in the alternative shall be positioned a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the internal floor level. Appeal Decision 6000385 2 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. Preliminary Matters 3. The reason for refusal includes reference to policies ‘28 and 29 of the Publication Local Plan’. The Council adopted these policies as part of the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (October 2025) (the LP), and this supersedes the policies of the Local Plan (2018) which are also referenced in the decision notice. 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 in the adopted version of the LP. I therefore attach full weight to the adopted policies of the LP as part of the up-to-date development plan. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sheen Common Drive Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The area forming the CA was largely undeveloped until the early C20 when a large estate was begun in 1925. The traditional architecture displayed by many of the houses along Berwyn Drive is derivative of this period. The dwellings are commonly set back from the highway behind front gardens and driveways which together with the low hedges, mature trees and shrubbery in the verges provides a spaciousness and verdancy to the street. Many of the dwellings have undergone alterations and extensions and sit close to their side boundaries. Even so, there is an overarching architectural unity to the street scene, derived from the canted bay windows, primary facing materials of red and brown brick and hanging tiles, and the prominent forward projections. These characteristics are key to the significance of the CA. 6. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling set in a generous plot and built in a traditional, inter-war style. The property is an L-shape, with a forward projecting bay housing a two-storey canted bay window with hung tile detail. In these respects, it positively contributes to the characteristics and architectural style prevalent in the CA. 7. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. 8. The side extensions would be set well back from the existing forward projection and suitably recessed in relation to the other elements of the dwelling’s front elevation with their ridges stepping down from the main roof. This would ensure that the development would be legibly subservient to the original form and architecture of the host dwelling in views from the street. Even though the extensions would subsume the rear elevation this would not be prominent in the CA. Moreover, the general consistency in terms of window proportions, the complementary hipped roofline and restrained palette of matching materials throughout would provide architectural unity that would respect the host dwelling and the wider CA. Appeal Decision 6000385 3 9. Furthermore, whilst it would substantially fill the width of the plot, the extended dwelling would be seen in the context of other similarly proportioned houses. The spacing between the nearest neighbouring dwelling would also be consistent with many others in the street. Taken together with the design elements described, the proposal would not dominate the existing house or its neighbours and so would accord with this and other aspects of the guidance in the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document House Extensions and External Alterations (2015). 10. The Council contends that many of the extensions within the locality occurred prior to the designation of the CA and also prior to the SPD. Even if that is the case, it does not alter my view that the proposal would acceptably relate to its surroundings. 11. I conclude, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Sheen Common Drive Conservation Area. In that regard, it would comply with Policies 28 and 29 of the LP and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) for all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and to conserve the historic environment. For the same reasons it would also comply with the requirements to conserve the historic environment in the National Planning Policy Framework. Other Matters 12. The proposals are shown to sit within the application site. Any potential for guttering to overhang a neighbouring boundary, requirements to access neighbouring land for maintenance and relationships between building foundations and neighbouring garden plants would be a private matter for the appellant to resolve with their neighbours. 13. Due to the separation distance between the south facing elevations of the proposed development and the garden areas close to the rear elevations and windows serving 45 and 47 Sheen Common Drive (Nos 45 and 47), there would be no material effects on outlook for occupiers of these neighbouring properties. I note the Council reached similar conclusions in this regard. A condition can be attached requiring the proposed ‘conservation style roof light’ to that side of the building be positioned a minimum height above floor level, as this ties in with the appellant’s stated intentions, or otherwise to be fixed and obscure glazed. Conditions 14. Conditions in respect of the timescale for implementation and specifying the drawings that the development will need to be carried out in accordance with are necessary in the interests of certainty. The drawings also specify conservation style rooflights, a new garage door to match the existing as well as matching brickwork and tiles. Therefore, a separate materials condition is not necessary in this instance. 15. I have attached the Council’s suggested condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the appellant’s fire safety statement in the interests of safety and compliance with Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). I have also attached the aforementioned condition relating to the rooflight nearest to Nos 45 and 47. It is similar to that suggested by the Council but has been amended for clarity to specifically relate to the elevation facing those properties. Given the acute Appeal Decision 6000385 4 angles between the rooflight to the other side and the side elevation of 5 Berwyn Drive, the condition is not required to also apply to that roof slope. 16. There is nothing to suggest that any significant trees within the CA would likely be affected by the proposed development. Therefore, it would not be reasonable or necessary to attach the extensive tree protection condition suggested by the Council. Conclusion and Recommendation 17. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. E Clifford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR