Loft conversion with infill and rear dormer, two new windows to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2026 by Rachael Pipkin BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002701 28c Priory Road, Richmond Upon Thames, Hampton TW12 2NT • 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 Moore against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council. • The application Ref is PA25/3540. • The development proposed is Loft conversion with infill and rear dormer, two new windows to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Loft conversion with infill and rear dormer, two new windows to the front elevation at 28c Priory Road, Richmond Upon Thames, Hampton TW12 2NT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/3540, 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 EX-L003, EX-P001, EX-P002, EX-P004, EX-E001, EX-E002, EX-E003, EX-E004, EX-S001, EX-S002, PR-L001, PR-P002, PR-P003, PR- E001, PR-E002, PR-E003, PR-E004, PR-S001 and PR-S002. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property. Reasons 3. Number 28c is a single-storey semi-detached dwelling. It has an unusual roof form, comprising two parallel double pitched roofs separated by an area of flat roof which extend across the width of the property running parallel to the road. The front roofslope facing towards Priory Road incorporates twin front facing gables. 4. The proposal would infill the void between the parallel pitched roofs and construct a large rear dormer which would extend across much of the width of the rear roofslope. Due to its size and limited set in from the edges of the roof, the rear dormer would be a large and bulky addition to the property. However, the rear elevation is not of any particular architectural merit and appears somewhat overwhelmed by the height of the taller two-storey properties either side. The Appeal Decision 6002701 2 proposed roof extension would be set below the eaves of these neighbouring properties and, in the context of these larger buildings, it would not appear as a disproportionate or unduly dominant addition to the host property. 5. The changes to the rear elevation of the property would only be glimpsed above the single-storey garage fronting Chestnut Grove. The infill extension would be no higher than the existing ridge line and would not be readily visible from the street, with the only changes seen to the front elevation being the addition of windows which would be acceptable. 6. For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host property. It would therefore accord with Policy 28 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2025 which requires development to be of high quality design demonstrating amongst other things that it is compatible in scale. Conditions 7. No conditions have been suggested by the parties. In addition to the standard condition relating to commencement of the development, in the interests of clarity, I have imposed a plans condition. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring matching materials is necessary. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed. Rachael Pipkin INSPECTOR