Rear extensions, side extension, hip to gable roof extension, rear dormer, front porch, rear garden room, front roof lights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 December 2025 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by P Hanna PGDip MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000667 50 Washington Road, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames. London SW13 9BH • 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 Paul Caprez against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/2425. • The development proposed is rear extensions, side extension, hip to gable roof extension, rear dormer, front porch, rear garden room, front roof lights. 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 policies of that plan cited on the decision notice are no longer part of the development plan and have no weight. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to the relevant policies within the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan). Main Issue 4. The main issue is 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 two storey residential dwelling. The surrounding estate features properties with similar setbacks from the road, hipped roofs, fenestration of a similar shape and size, terraces punctuated by semi- detached pairs and street patterns of a comparable size and quality. The spaces between buildings are an important feature of the area, demarcating separation and providing a pleasant pattern and balance to the area, which provides a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000667 2 6. The two storey side extension would extend the property to the boundary, harmfully eroding the space between the buildings and failing to respect the pattern and form of development in the wider area. 7. Guidance in paragraph 5.2.3 of the House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (the SPD) specifically sets out that two storey side extensions should be sited one metre from the boundary. Even if a small gap would remain at the neighbouring property, 48 Washington Road, that would be approximately half of the existing gap and would have a detrimental and unbalancing effect on the important gap between the buildings. 8. The appellant maintains that the existing dwelling is below space standards for a two storey dwelling and that the side extension is necessary to facilitate a stairwell and to achieve minimum bedroom space sizes on the first floor. I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to demonstrate the standard and how it applies to the proposed development. Nor have I been provided with a justification for the need to increase the size of the property that would outweigh the harm identified above. Therefore, I afford these considerations little weight. 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to the ability of the Council to approve or refuse development at the adjoining property, 48 Washington Road. Future planning considerations relating to other properties are not within the remit of this appeal. 10. I acknowledge that the development would increase the size of a family property. These are, however, primarily personal circumstances that would not outweigh the harm identified. 11. Whilst the Local Plan may support intensification of small sites with infill and conversions, compliance in this regard would be a neutral effect and would not outweigh the harm identified above. 12. The two storey side extension would be set back from the front elevation, displaying subordination; however, that would not overcome the harm found above. Furthermore, the width of the appeal property in relation to others in the area, even if it is narrower, would not justify extending to the boundary and eroding the important gap between properties. 13. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policy 28 of the Local Plan insofar as it seeks development that respects, contributes to, and maximises opportunities to enhance the local character, and the SPD insofar as it seeks development to maintain important gaps. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations that outweigh this conflict. 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 Appeal Decision 6000667 3 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. P Hanna INSPECTOR