Demolition of existing garage and rear extension addition and the erection of a single storey ground floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 November 2025 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000724 21 King Edwards Grove, Teddington TW11 9LY • 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 Lucy Traill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/1540. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and rear extension addition and the erection of a single storey ground floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and rear extension addition and the erection of a single storey ground floor side and rear extension at 21 King Edwards Grove, Teddington TW11 9LY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/1540, 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: 24003 (00)098 Rev C; 24003 (00)099 Rev C; 24003 (01)000 Rev B; 24003 (01)001 Rev B; 24003 (01)002 Rev B; 24003 (01)003 Rev B; 24003 (01)004 Rev B; 24003 (01)100 Rev B; 24003 (01)101 Rev B; and 24003 (01)102 Rev B. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling and shall be retained as such thereafter. 4) Prior to the commencement of above ground works a Sustainable Drainage Strategy (SuDS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved SuDS shall be maintained as such thereafter. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024 – 2039 (RLP) was adopted in October 2025. The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the change in policy context and where these have been received, they have been taken into consideration. 3. The appeal property is situated within the King Edwards Grove Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, I have a statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to ensure special attention shall be Appeal Decision 6000724 2 paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Main Issue 4. The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and linked to this whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the King Edwards Grove Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The King Edwards Grove Conservation Area 80 Appraisal (CA Appraisal) highlights that the area’s significance derives primarily from its high-quality Edwardian design and materials, with timber detailing making a particularly important contribution to the character and streetscape. The architectural composition along King Edwards Grove demonstrates exceptional craftsmanship, evident in the richly ornamented façades, elaborate tiled entrances, and doors with glazed insets. Detached and semi-detached dwellings are set within generous plots, with front and side setbacks creating visual gaps that allow glimpses of vegetation behind, an essential component of the area’s character. These elements collectively form the significance of the CA. 6. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling whose design, craftsmanship, and materials align with the positive attributes identified in the CA Appraisal. A modest gap separates it from the adjacent detached property, reinforcing the spatial rhythm that characterises the CA. A single-storey timber garage and timber fencing are located alongside the house. The limited scale of the garage and fence ensures the visual gap between buildings is maintained. Overall, the design and siting of 21 King Edwards Grove make a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 7. The proposal includes a single-storey wraparound extension with a crown roof to the side and a flat roof with roof lanterns to the rear, replacing an existing rear addition. The extension would be slightly more than half the width of the host dwelling but not as deep, with its eaves below the first-floor windows and an approximate 0.45 metre setback from the principal elevation. While certain elements of the proposal diverge from the House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, the guidance is not prescriptive; its purpose is to prevent extensions from dominating the host property or eroding the character of the area. In this case, the modest height, width, and setback ensure the scale of the single storey extension would remain subordinate to the substantial two-storey dwelling. The hipped roof design would visually reduce the perceived width of the side extension. As it would appear subordinate in scale, the extended dwelling would not appear disproportionately large within the street scene. Importantly, the scale and siting of the proposal would retain the visual gap between properties, a key feature of the CA, while respecting the established building line and spatial hierarchy. 8. The proposed use of sympathetic materials, including timber-framed windows, a brick façade in Flemish bond, and a tiled roof with decorative ridge tiles above the side extension, would reflect the detailing and character of the host dwelling and others within the CA. While the flat roof element would not replicate these features, it would be largely screened by the hipped roof of the side extension and the Appeal Decision 6000724 3 house itself. The above features would be sympathetic with the host dwelling, and the comparatively simplistic design of the extension would ensure the high-quality Edwardian design of the host dwelling would remain dominant when the dwelling is viewed as a whole preserving the appearance of the dwelling within the CA. 9. By confining the extension to the side and rear and replacing an existing addition, the proposal avoids harm to the principal elevation and preserves the craftsmanship and detailing that contribute to the CA’s significance. The retention of spatial gaps and the use of complementary materials would further preserve the character of the CA. The proposal respects the pattern of development and preserves the features that positively contribute to the significance of the CA. Given the above, I find that the proposal would not be detrimental to the CA and thus preserve its significance. 10. For the above reasons, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area and would preserve the character and appearance of the King Edwards Grove Conservation Area as a whole. It would safeguard the features that underpin its significance, including the architectural detailing, spatial rhythm, and verdant setting, while introducing a modest, well-integrated addition. Accordingly, the development would comply with Policies 28 and 29 of the RLP. These seek, amongst other matters, to ensure the design, layout and materials respect and respond to the historic environment and any relevant heritage assets. Other Matters 11. Each case must be determined on its own merits and whilst this scheme may have followed a previously refused application, this should not prejudice the outcome of further proposals. 12. A Reasonable Exception Statement was submitted with the application which identified that the proposed works would not impact the existing fire strategy for the dwelling. As such the scheme would generally be in accordance with the aims and purposes of Policy D12 of the London Plan. Conditions 13. Further to the statutory commencement condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the permitted plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Furthermore, a condition requiring the materials used in the construction of the extension match those used in the host dwelling is necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA. 14. Based on the submitted evidence in the Flood Risk Assessment the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere subject to a condition to secure a Sustainable Drainage Strategy. Consequently, condition 4 is necessary in the interests of ensuring the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. I have revised the wording of the suggested condition in the interests of certainty and reasonableness. Conclusion 15. The proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Appeal Decision 6000724 4 G Sibley INSPECTOR