Conversion of the garage into a habitable room, front door, and internal changes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 November 2025 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000499 51 Waverley Avenue, Richmond Upon Thames, Twickenham TW2 6DQ • 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 Gagan Deep Singh Bhatia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/0037. • The development proposed is the conversion of the garage into a habitable room, front door, and internal changes. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. The Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039, which was in draft at the time the Council refused planning permission, was formally adopted on 7 October 2025. This replaces the Richmond Local Plan (2018), such that the policy LP1 of that plan cited on the decision notice is no longer part of the development plan and has no weight. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to the relevant policies within the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan), with particular regard to policy 28. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow located on the southern side of Waverley Avenue. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of two storey and single storey, semi-detached residential properties which present a pleasant pattern to the front elevations in terms of a pattern, form, style, and materials. The property has been altered and extended in a considered manner, where it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000499 2 6. The proposal would convert the existing garage to habitable residential space with an additional entrance, in the form of a combined door and window to the front elevation and the addition of a small ‘dummy’ roof above and internal alterations. 7. Whilst the ‘dummy’ roof element would appear visually similar to other roof elements above garages in the area, those roof elements exist alongside two storey properties and are combined with porches which creates visual cohesion. Single storey properties do not display this characteristic along Waverley Avenue. In this instance, the appeal property would be single storey with a large simple pitched roof with two forward projecting gables, and the dummy roof would not blend well with the porch. Despite maintaining the gutter level of the host dwelling, the result would be a jumbled front elevation, lacking cohesion, and a harmful juxtaposition of forms, uncharacteristic of bungalows in the area. 8. The proposal would introduce a combined window and door, which would unbalance the front elevation and would provide two entrances to the front elevation. This visual imbalance would harmfully jar against the pleasant character of the street scene and give the appearance of two properties. The combined effect of the roof and the door with window would be visually intrusive and harmfully dominate the front elevation of the appeal property. 9. I acknowledge that the materials matching the existing development would be used; however, this factor alone would not overcome the harm to the imbalance in the front elevation. 10. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy 28 of the Local Plan and House Extensions and Alterations SPD (2015). These seek for development to be compatible with the local character, including the relationship to the existing townscape frontages, form, materials, and detailing, amongst other things. Public Sector Equality Duty 11. I acknowledge that access for carers would be made easier by a suitable front access. I have considered the circumstances of the appellant and their family in this instance and recognise that the development would allow them to better provide care for a family member. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 12. The Act sets out the relevant protected characteristics which includes age, sex, and sexual orientation. However, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed, and I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. Informed by the evidence before me, in my view the adverse effects of dismissing the scheme on those with protected characteristics would be proportionate having regard to the harm identified to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider area. Other Matters 13. I have been directed towards approved extensions at No. 53 Waverley Avenue. That property is adjacent to the appeal property and has a garage conversion with Appeal Decision 6000499 3 a dummy roof. I differentiate that property from the appeal property in that it is a two storey dwelling whereby the dummy roof merges into the porch, which adds cohesion. That property is also differentiated by the fact that the forward facing aspect of the conversion has a window and the appeal property would have a window and a door. Therefore, this is not directly comparable, and I afford it little weight. 14. I have also been directed towards several other properties in the area. I can understand why the Appellant feels that these demonstrate similar qualities in terms of the side extensions, roof types, and gutter levels. Nonetheless, the evidence before me excludes a detailed planning background of these schemes and therefore I cannot be certain against which policies of the development plan they were considered, or if they have permission at all. However, they are different in nature to the scheme before me in form and scale and I must assess this case on its own merits. 15. I acknowledge that the proposal would improve functional space for the family and for visitors; however, that is a personal benefit that would not outweigh the harm found. 16. I acknowledge that the proposal would come close to complying with height standards contained within the London Plan (2021). However, this would not outweigh the harm found above. 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 dismissed. Scott Wilson 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 dismissed. B Plenty INSPECTOR