Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, replacement front porch and associated landscape alterations. Proposed works include the demolition of the existing garage and front porch

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 27 November 2025 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000781 10 Princes Road, Kew, Richmond Upon Thames TW9 3HP • 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 Jessica Inwood (on behalf of Shape+) against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council. • The application Ref is PA25/2283. • The development proposed is described as a “Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, replacement front porch and associated landscape alterations. Proposed works include the demolition of the existing garage and front porch”. 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. Since the issuing of the Council’s decision, the new Richmond Local Plan has been adopted, and the appeal has been determined on the basis of the policies of this plan. In the interests of procedural fairness, both parties were contacted for comment and any responses received have been considered within this appeal. 4. Accordingly, it is noted that the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document House Extensions and External Alterations May 2015 (SPD) states that it should be read in conjunction with the now outdated local plan which had comprised the Core Strategy and Development Management Plan. Although the local plan has been superseded, I am satisfied that the specific policies to which the SPD relates within the context of this appeal (namely LP1, LP3 and LP4) are consistent with Policies within the new local plan (namely Policy 28, 29 and 30) and with the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, the SPD and the guidance contained within it remain a material consideration to which I attach significant weight in the context of this appeal. Main Issue 5. The Council and appellant agree that the replacement porch and single storey rear extension are acceptable, and I am satisfied based on the evidence before me that this is a reasonable conclusion. Appeal Decision 6000781 2 6. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Kew Gardens Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The site is located within the Kew Gardens Conservation Area (KGCA) which derives much of its significance from its Victorian pattern and development to the east of the Botanic Gardens, linked to the expansion of the railway. Whilst there is no one predominant style or design of buildings, many showcase well preserved Victorian features. The combination of the variety of quality architectural design which has evolved over time, alongside large front gardens and mature street trees contributes to a sense of quality townscape with a character of openness and verdancy. The appeal site is also located within the Buffer Zone of the UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS), Kew Gardens however, due to its siting and the extent of the proposal, there is not contention that the setting of the WHS would be adversely affected. 8. Princes Road is characterised by an eclectic array of development formed of differing design and architecture. As such, whilst there is no overarching uniformity between dwellings, the retention of their original design through lack of overt alteration and varying gaps between buildings contribute to both an attractive street scene and the character and appearance of the KGCA. 9. The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling with detached garage above which a void is created between the host and its neighbour. The dwelling itself is identified as a Building of Townscape Merit which is considered to be of definite quality and character, as described within the Buildings of Townscape Merit SPD (BTM SPD) and is identified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). In the absence of any particular evidence, it appears that the appeal dwelling is of particular merit due to its architectural individuality within the road, and the retention of its original façade which contributes positively to the character of the road. 10. The SPD sets out that side extensions should not dominate the existing dwelling which can be achieved successfully through either integrating into the original dwelling, or by appearing as an obvious, subservient addition. The proposed development would introduce a two storey side extension with a flat-roofed structure linking it to the host. 11. Although the setting down of the proposal’s roof ridge would provide a limited sense of subservience in relation to the host dwelling, the limited setback from the front elevation and eave heights matching the host building undermines this overall effect. The introduction of a gable end wall would further contribute to the incongruity of the proposal as an obvious addition to the host dwelling, with the inclusion of a Juliet balcony further worsening the visual impact along with a failure to respect the established rhythm and proportion of fenestration. 12. Turning to the wider visual impact of the proposal, due to the height, and width to adjacent to the boundary, the existing gap between buildings currently created by the void above the garage would be lost. Whilst I acknowledge that building gaps do vary in width along Princes Road, they nevertheless contribute to the open character and appearance of the area and the proposal would erode this, harming the significance of the KGCA. Appeal Decision 6000781 3 13. Notwithstanding the above, 12 Princes Road is observably set back from the host dwelling and is of an evidently different design. As such, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in a terracing effect due to the obvious distinction between these two buildings. 14. For these reasons, the proposal would fail to assimilate with the character and appearance of host dwelling and undermine the established design principles of the host dwelling, thereby eroding the architectural merit and significance of the NDHA and its contribution to the significance of the KGCA. I also find that the proposed development would result in wider harm to the character and appearance and therefore significance of the KGCA 15. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of the level of harm to its significance. In this instance, the level of harm would be towards the lower end of less than substantial. Where this type of harm arises, the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the development. 16. The appellant has not drawn my attention to any particular public benefits. However, I acknowledge that the development would provide an economic benefit during its construction by way of employment opportunity. However, given the modest scale of the proposal, this only attracts limited weight in support of the development, which would not be sufficient to outweigh the great weight of the harm identified. 17. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the NDHA (the host dwelling) and surrounding area and would thereby fail to preserve the character or appearance of the KGCA. I therefore find conflict with the test set out within s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the Richmond Local Plan. These Policies, among other things, aim to ensure development respects and contributes to the local character and environment, and conserves and enhances the significance of Conservation Areas and Non-Designated Heritage Assets. I further find conflict with the framework where it seeks to ensure high quality design and to protect heritage assets and their setting, and inconsistency with the SPD and the CA15 Kew Gardens Conservation Area Statement. Other Matters 18. The appellant contends that the Council has failed to consider the existing poor condition of the host dwelling in reaching their conclusions. However, whether or not this may be the case, there is no evidence that the alterations to the existing dwelling as proposed are the minimum required in order to facilitate the necessary improvements to the condition of the dwelling. I have not therefore attached any significant weight to this matter in the determination of the appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Decision 6000781 4 Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 20. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR