Roof extension with a front dormer, pitched capping roof side dormer (window obscure) and a gable roof to the rear elevation, and rooflights to the front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 March 2026 Appeal Ref:6003033 36 West Park Road, Kew, London TW9 4DA. • 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 Kaixuan Wang against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/1306. • The development proposed is roof extension with a front dormer, pitched capping roof side dormer (window obscure) and a gable roof to the rear elevation, and rooflights to the front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for roof extension with a front dormer, pitched capping roof side dormer (window obscure) and a gable roof to the rear elevation, and rooflights to the front elevation at 36 West Park Road, Kew, London TW9 4DA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: PA25/1306, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A-01; A-07; A-08; A-09; A-10; A-11; A-12; A- 13; A-14; A-15; A-16, A-17; A-18. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials set out on the approved plans. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Strategy accompanying the application in respect of 36 West Park Road, Kew, London TW9 4DA. 5) The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the windows in the side dormer have been fitted with obscure glazing and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. The windows shall thereafter be retained and maintained as installed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the Burlington Avenue & West Park Road Conservation Area. Appeal Decision 6003033 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property is a substantial, two storey, Edwardian semi-detached dwelling on the south side of West Park Road and within a predominantly residential area situated to the east of the railway line and Kew Gardens Station and to the west of Mortlake Road (A205). There are a number of groupings of predominantly semi- detached properties of different designs, with a small number of detached properties, and the appeal property sits within a group of four pairs of semi- detached properties of similar design, from Nos 28 - 42 (even). The property lies within the designated heritage asset of the Burlington Avenue & West Park Road Conservation Area. 4. The proposal relates to a roof extension including a front dormer, a pitched capping side roof dormer and gable roof to the rear elevation with rooflights to the front elevation. Roof tiles would match existing. 5. Section 72 (1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The significance of the Burlington Avenue & West Park Road Conservation Area relates to the concentration of Edwardian properties which have largely retained their attractive elevational detailing typical of the period including decorative porches, glazing, bays, chimney stacks and oriel windows. They are consistently set back from the street with low boundary walls and fences leading to small front gardens. There have, however, been a variety of changes and additions at roof level, including various dormer additions, but these do not detract from the overall attractive composition and significance of the Conservation Area. 6. A rear gable would be introduced to the rear roof which would sit comfortably within the existing roof form and would not be overly dominant; similar extensions are also found close by together with a wide mix of rear elevations. Small front dormers are a feature on many of the houses including the small group of dwellings at Nos 28- 42 (even). The proposed dormer has been designed to match the existing dormer on the adjoining dwelling at No 38 and so would improve the symmetry to the pair. I do not consider that the proposed rooflights, one to the front roof slope and one on each of the roof slopes to the front gable would be overly dominant and there are examples in the local area of rooflights. 7. The Council’s refusal notice specifically refers to the proposed side dormer. This would be set back from the front of the property and set within the existing roof slope. It would be set down from the ridge line and set in from the roof sides, particularly towards the front where it would be sited behind the chimney stack. Although I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s contention that it would not be seen from the street scene, I consider that it would be a modest feature because of its scale and its set back, with matching materials to the existing roof materials, and would be a subservient addition to the roof scape that would not detract from the character and appearance of the existing property. 8. Side roof dormers are a feature in the street scene and within the Conservation Area, ranging in age from recent additions as well as some more historic ones, particularly further to the east along West Park Road, some of which may predate the designation of the Conservation Area as well as the preparation of design guidance on such matters by the Council. However, the proposal before me has Appeal Decision 6003033 3 been well designed and its siting would be discreet and a subservient addition to the roof; it would not in my view harm the character or appearance of the existing property and would respect and conserve the significance of the designated heritage asset of the Conservation Area. 9. I am therefore satisfied and conclude that the proposed roof extensions would respect the character and appearance of the existing property and would conserve the significance of and therefore preserve the character and appearance of the Burlington Avenue & West Park Road Conservation Area. There would be no conflict with Policies 28 and 29 of the Richmond Local Plan (2025) and Policy HC1 (C) of the London Plan (2021) and the Council’s CA73 Burlington Avenue & West Park Road Conservation Area Statement as well as the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Sections 12 and 16, all of which seek a high standard of design which protects and conserves the significance of designated heritage assets. Conditions 10. Conditions are required to ensure that the materials accord with the notes set out on the approved plans in order to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the Conservation Area. The approved plans require to be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning. 11. A Fire Safety Statement has been submitted with the application and should be adhered to, in order to protect the living conditions of the residents and in the interests of fire safety. I do not consider it necessary to impose a separate condition in respect of NRMM as it is already separately regulated and given the scale and form of the proposal. The description of development refers to the windows to the side dormer being obscure glazed and the plans indicate the same, but for the avoidance of doubt and to protect the living conditions of the neighbours, I shall impose a condition to this effect. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. L J Evans INSPECTOR