Relocation of front door to property, demolition of existing side extension, and erection of new part single, part two storey side extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made 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: 16th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000325 18 Wellington Road, Hampton, Richmond Upon Thames TW12 1JT • 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 Whitehouse against the decision of the council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/3212/HOT. • The development proposed is relocation of front door to property, demolition of existing side extension, and erection of new part single, part two storey side extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for relocation of front door to property, demolition of existing side extension, and erection of new part single, part two storey side extensions at 18 Wellington Road, Hampton, Richmond Upon Thames TW12 1JT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3212/HOT, 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 drawing nos. 1818.02.03.Exg02.001 (Site Location Plan); 1818.03.03.Pln02.002 (Proposed Block Plan); 1818.03.03.Pln02.022 – Rev A (Proposed Ground Floor Plan); 1818.03.03.Pln02.023 – Rev A (Proposed First Floor Plan); 1818.03.03.Pln02.024 – Rev A (Proposed Second Floor Plan); 1818.03.03.Pln02.060 – Rev A (Proposed Front Elevation (West)); 1818.03.03.Pln02.061 (Proposed Side Elevation (South)); 1818.03.03.Pln02.062 – Rev A (Proposed Rear Elevation (East)); 1818.03.03.Pln02.063 (Proposed Side Elevation (North); 1818.03.03.Pln02.064 – Rev A (Proposed Side Elevation (West)) and 1818.03.03.Pln02.065 – Rev A (Proposed Side Elevation (East)). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Prior to the installation of any windows associated with the approved development, detailed plans of the windows to a scale of no less than 1:10 including sectional elevations, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved in writing all windows associated with the proposed development shall be installed in full accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision 6000325 2 5) Prior to the installation of the relocated front door and associated architrave and piers, precise details of the design and materials of these features shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved in writing the relocated front door and associated architrave and piers shall be installed in full accordance with the approved details. 6) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on Sustainable Drainage Systems principles, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. There should also be a preference for green over grey features, in line with the following drainage hierarchy: i) rainwater use as a resource (for example rainwater harvesting, blue roofs for irrigation) ii) rainwater infiltration to ground at or close to source (evidence should be provided of sufficient infiltration rates) iii) rainwater attenuation in green infrastructure features for gradual release (for example green roofs, rain gardens) iv) rainwater discharge direct to a watercourse (unless not appropriate) v) controlled rainwater discharge to a surface water sewer or drain vi) controlled rainwater discharge to a combined sewer. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved surface water drainage scheme. 7) The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Statement dated 16 December 2024, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 Matter 3. Since its decision, the Council adopted the Richmond Local Plan (October 2025) (LP). The LP supersedes the policies of the ‘Local Plan (2018)’. The adopted policies of the LP have not materially changed from those of the ‘Publication Local Plan’ which were referred to in the decision notice. Therefore, the appellant would have been aware of these policies and I have taken them into account in my assessment of the appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to any ‘Buildings of Townscape Merit’ and trees; and Appeal Decision 6000325 3 • flood risk. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal dwelling occupies a corner plot and forms the final house in a row of five pairs of semi-detached properties. This block of ten houses have a strong unifying architectural character in the Queen Anne Revival style. They are characterised by red brickwork, stucco detailing, and have dormer windows to form an attic storey. Each property features a prominent two-storey canted bay window, and elements typical of the style, including moulded door surrounds with engaged columns and fanlights above. Due to the narrow gaps between the pairs, they have an almost terraced appearance. 6. The appeal property benefits from an enlarged front canted bay window but lacks the ornamental balcony present on the other houses in the group. It’s primary entrance is to the side elevation but, similar to neighbouring dwellings, it incorporates a moulded door surround and a timber door with stained glass detail. The side elevation also incorporates a two-storey square bay with mullioned windows and there are several other windows to this elevation with small pane details reflecting the character of the wider group. Further features to this side include a secondary entrance and a modern single storey timber-clad extension. The house has a wrap around front/side garden adding to its status on the corner. 7. Overall, the appeal dwelling forms part of a distinctive and cohesive group of buildings which contribute positively to the townscape character. Indeed, they are locally listed in the Council’s ‘Buildings of Townscape Merit’ Supplementary Planning Document (2015) and I find that they warrant non designated heritage status. 8. Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the appeal. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 9. The two-storey element of the side extension facing on to Wellington Road would be less than half the width of the host dwelling. It would be built in materials to match its host, would be set back from the front elevation and would be set in from the side boundary, stepping down in height towards Prince’s Road. The roof form would be set down from and would complement the profile of the main roof. Together, these factors would ensure that this extension would not dominate the existing house, being a subordinate addition which would allow for the original form to be appreciated. This would also retain the coherent frontage of the wider BTM group. In all these respects, the proposal would align with the guidance in the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015). 10. In contrast to the unsympathetic timber cladded extension proposed for demolition, the rearmost extension that would replace it would be faced in red brickwork to match the existing house. Together with its prevailing single storey scale and position towards the rear this would ensure it would be a suitably discreet addition. This would be further ensured through the position of the tallest part of this Appeal Decision 6000325 4 extension being set away from the boundary with Prince’s Road. The shape of the roof of this element would also be similar to that on the two-storey extension providing cohesion across the proposals. The gap between the two extensions would provide suitable space to the side of the dwelling such that the dwelling’s status on the corner, and its retained bay and window features on this side, would be suitably appreciated from the street. 11. Furthermore, the plans and application form indicate that, other than a rear facing kitchen window, the proposed windows would be painted timber sash windows with small panes thereby reflecting those on the existing dwelling. The relocated ‘front door’ would replicate the existing, being painted timber, of a similar if not equal size and also having an architrave and piers to the surround. Conditions could be attached to ensure that the windows and the ‘front door’ reflect the quality of detailing on the existing dwelling. Consequently, the detailing and materials proposed would be of a high quality which would respect the architecture of the host dwelling. 12. There would be some limited works to the boundary wall on Prince’s Road. Even so, the repositioned pedestrian gate would only be slightly offset in terms of its alignment with the ‘front door’. The secondary entrance door would be removed and replaced by a window of complementary design. Consequently, these alterations would not have any significant effects on the appreciation of the host building’s architecture. 13. Whilst the PV panels indicated on the drawings would be a contemporary addition, the evidence before me indicates that they would be partially obscured by parapets on their respective roofs. This would ensure that appreciation of these features would be suitably minimised in views from the street. 14. The Council in their reasons for refusal have referred to the potential effect of the proposed development on a large, mature tree situated to the front of the appeal site and have recommended that an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) would be required. However, on my site visit I observed that the tree is no longer in situ. The appellants state that the tree was removed in August 2023. An examination of historic ‘Google Streetview’ images confirms that the tree was removed some time before August 2024. I understand the tree was not covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Given the tree is no longer in situ the urban greening and tree protection provisions under Policies 28 and 42 of the LP cannot be applied. In any case, this does not alter my finding that the design of the proposal would preserve the Building of Townscape Merit and the wider group. 15. I conclude, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to Buildings of Townscape Merit. In that regard, it would comply with Policies 28 and 30 of the LP which require all development to be of a high architectural and design quality and to preserve, and where possible enhance the significance, character and setting of non-designated heritage assets, including Buildings of Townscape Merit. For the reasons set out, it would also comply with the heritage conservation requirements in the Framework. 16. The Council’s first reason for refusal also refers to the London Plan 2021 (LP2021). However, other than the Policies relating to flood risk, which is covered under the second main issue, no other policies from this document have been specifically Appeal Decision 6000325 5 referred to or provided. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the LP2021 indicates that I should reach an alternative conclusion on this main issue. Flood Risk 17. The appellants’ Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) identifies that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and that taking into account both fluvial and pluvial matters, the risk of flooding is very low. It also indicates that there is a negligible risk of groundwater flooding at the site. The FRA recommends a Sustainable Drainage Strategy (SuDS) should be developed for effective management of surface water runoff over the lifetime of the proposed development. This aligns with the Council’s observations. 18. The appellant has stated that the provision of a SuDS could be addressed as a pre-commencement condition. Given the low risk identified and that there is no detailed contrary evidence, I consider this to be a proportionate approach to addressing flood risk. Indeed, the Council has provided a suggested condition in this respect. This could be attached in the event that planning permission is granted. 19. I conclude, subject to a pre-commencement condition requiring the development to be implemented in accordance with a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on Sustainable Drainage Systems principles, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of flood risk. In that regard, it would comply with Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) to ensure that development proposals ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated, that residual risk is addressed and that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. Conditions 20. I have attached a condition with the standard timescale for implementation and an approved drawings condition in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring the materials to match the existing dwelling together with a pre-installation conditions requiring precise details of windows and the relocated front door are necessary in the interests of ensuring the development complements the character and appearance of the Building of Townscape Merit and the wider street scene. 21. A similarly worded condition to that suggested by the Council is attached in respect of a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site to minimise flood risk. I have also attached the Council’s suggested condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the appellant’s Fire Safety Statement and this is reasonable to ensure that the development incorporates fire safety measures in accordance with Policy D12 of the LP2021. Conclusion and Recommendation 22. 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 Appeal Decision 6000325 6 Inspector’s Decision 23. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR