Re-instatement of the chimney at the rear of No.20 and No.22 Shaftesbury Road and works at No.22 comprising merging of the patio doors, rear elevation first floor windows, rear first floor extension, and relocation of stairs between basement patio and g round floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 January 2026 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001674 22 Shaftesbury Road, Richmond TW9 2TD • 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 Anthony O'Neill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/0138. • The development proposed is the re-instatement of the chimney at the rear of No.20 and No.22 Shaftesbury Road and works at No.22 comprising merging of the patio doors, rear elevation first floor windows, rear first floor extension, and relocation of stairs between basement patio and g round floor. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the re-instatement of the chimney at the rear of No.20 and No.22 Shaftesbury Road and works at No.22 comprising merging of the patio doors, rear elevation first floor windows, rear first floor extension, and relocation of stairs between basement patio and ground floor at 22 Shaftesbury Road, Richmond TW9 2TD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/0138, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: L+2324_303 Rev A Site Location Plan; L+2324_000 Rev B As Built Basement Floor Plan; L+2324_100 Rev B As Built Ground Floor Plan; L+2324_101 Rev B As Built First Floor Plan; L+2324_202 Rev B As Built Front Elevation; L+2324_203 Rev E As Built West Elevation; and L+2324_303 Rev D Comparative Rear Elevation. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description from the Council’s decision notice as it appears to be more comprehensive than the description given on the planning application form. However, I have deleted words which are not acts of development. 3. I saw that the works described above had already been carried out. 4. The Council’s reason for refusal references the Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19). The Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP) was formally adopted on 7 October 2025 and therefore I have determined the appeal in accordance with it. 5. The appeal proposals include the reinstatement of the chimney and works to the ground floor and basement which do not form part of the Council’s reason for Appeal Decision 6001674 2 refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 6. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the first floor rear extension on the character and appearance of the host building as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM) and the Kew Foot Road Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 7. The CA is a dense urban area which derives its special character from its eclectic mix of building types and uses, resulting in a high-quality townscape. The CA gains significance from its architectural and historic interest. 8. The appeal dwelling is one of a coherent group of miniature Victorian villas in semi- detached pairs, linked as a terrace by single storey side porches. These have been identified as BTM’s. When viewed from the road, the brick-built properties have largely retained their original features and windows. They therefore contribute positively to the significance of the CA. 9. The appeal scheme includes a first-floor rear extension that exceeds half the width of the dwelling. Its lean-to roof is hidden behind a parapet, meaning it does not match the lean-to roof of the neighbouring property. As a result, the scheme conflicts with the guidance set out in the House Extension and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted May 2015), which seeks to ensure that extensions do not overwhelm the original scale and character of the building. 10. Unlike the uniform front elevations of the BTMs, the rear elevations, and particularly that of the host dwelling, have been heavily altered. A mixture of past additions and extensions means that the rear lacks the consistency found at the front. The host dwelling, with its extensive glazing in a flat roof rear addition, already has a contemporary character. Within this context, the proposed first-floor extension does not appear incongruous. As it only slightly exceeds half the width of the house, it does not dominate the rear elevation. 11. The area to the rear of the property is entirely enclosed by tall boundary walls. Consequently, views of the rear of the building are very limited and I could not identify anywhere beyond the private gardens of the properties close to the appeal site where the proposal is visible. 12. As a result, I find that the impact on the significance of both the BTM and the CA is a neutral one. The proposal therefore preserves the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly I find no conflict with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the LP which require high quality design which respects local character and safeguards the significance and appearance of designated and non-designated heritage assets. Conditions 13. As the work has already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach the standard time condition or the condition suggested by the Council relating to emission standards during construction. However, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Appeal Decision 6001674 3 14. I have not attached the condition restricting the use of the roof of the extension as one was not imposed on the earlier planning permission1 and the circumstances in this appeal are not materially different in that respect. 15. The Council have also suggested a condition which requires that the development is carried out in accordance with the Fire Safety Strategy submitted to the Council. However, neither that document nor the corresponding development plan policy is before me. In any event, as the development has been carried out, the condition would not meet the tests in Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion 16. The proposed development adheres to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR 1 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3193958 – first floor extension