Construction of a rear roof dormer situated on the rear outrigger

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 August 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005107 45 Pagoda Avenue, Richmond upon Thames, Richmond, TW9 2HQ • 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 J Danyliuk against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/4345. • The development proposed is the construction of a rear roof dormer situated on the rear outrigger. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a rear roof dormer situated on the rear outrigger at 45 Pagoda Avenue, Richmond upon Thames, Richmond, TW9 2HQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/4345, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The roof area of the existing two-storey outrigger shall at no time be accessed for use as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. 2) The window to the northwest facing side elevation of the rear roof dormer extension hereby permitted shall: - (i) at no time be openable below a minimum height of 1.7m above the floor of the room in which it is installed, and (ii) at no time be glazed other than in obscured glass below a minimum height of 1.7m above the floor of the room in which it is installed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was made retrospectively. At the time of my visit the development was complete. 3. During the course of the appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (the Framework 2026) was published. Both parties were invited to comment about the relevance of the Framework 2026 to their case. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Reasons 5. The appeal relates to a two-storey, mid-terraced property with a two-storey outrigger extending partially across Nos 45 and 47, in common with the traditional Appeal Decision 6005107 2 development pattern along Pagoda Avenue. The appeal property was previously extended to the rear with a roof extension, effectively projecting the rear face of the main dwelling upwards. The new rear roof dormer sits aloft the flat roof of the outrigger as a ‘box-like’ addition. 6. The Council accepts that dormer extensions are characteristic of properties along the road. I observed these for myself from vantage points both within the rear garden of the appeal property and from roof level above the outrigger, which I was able to access from the new dormer. I acknowledge that many may have been constructed as permitted development, but they nevertheless contribute to a significantly evolved roofscape to the rear of properties along Pagoda Avenue and within the wider area. 7. The Council argues that others in similar positions maintain a greater set-back from the respective property’s eaves when compared with that constructed at No 45. That may be true, but the dormer constructed at No 45 extends from the main rear wall of the dwelling approximately halfway along the length of the outrigger and as a consequence importantly remains significantly set back from its eaves. It is also stepped away from the outside flank wall of the outrigger, albeit by a fairly narrow margin, and sits below the ridge line of the main roof. As such, I am satisfied that it appears as a sufficiently subservient addition within the context of its surroundings. 8. I am mindful that the dormer constructed is larger than one similar which obtained planning permission in January 2023 (Ref 22/3366/HOT) for works that were described as ‘Erection of rear dormer on outrigger with rooflights on front elevation and alterations to the rear fenestration’. I am also mindful that the Council has negotiated similar but more shallow dormer extensions locally. Notwithstanding, I do not consider the enlarged form of the dormer which has been constructed to have materially diminished the quality of development that was previously approved. Neither do I find its presence to be overly dominant, incongruous in its setting, or overtly out of step with the pattern of development that has become established to the rear of these properties, which is by no means uniform or regimented. Additionally, roofing materials along Pagoda Avenue vary from property to property. The use of grey hanging tiles in this instance is not out of place. For these reasons, I am unable to identify any conflict with the guidance for roof extensions at section 8 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document House Extensions and External Alterations May 2015. 9. I note that planning permission was refused in January 2022 (Ref 21/4171/HOT) for development described as ‘rear loft extension with enclosed roof terrace on back addition with rooflights on front elevation and alterations’, and that a subsequent appeal was dismissed (Ref APP/L5810/D/22/3297243). Nevertheless, the appeal decision pre-dates the 2023 grant of planning permission, and furthermore, it considered a materially different form of development which combined a dormer window with a roof terrace and balustrading. 10. Overall, I find the dormer to be appropriately in-keeping with the host dwelling and wider character and appearance of the area. As such, there is no conflict with Policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2025 as far as it seeks to achieve a quality of design that is compatible with local character. For the same reason I find no conflict with the Framework 2026’s decision-making policies for achieving well-designed places. Appeal Decision 6005107 3 Conditions 11. As the development has taken place and is complete, I have no reason to impose the standard time limit condition, the standard plans condition, or conditions relating to any making good, construction in accordance with the submitted Reasonable Exception Statement relating to fire safety measures, or control relating to on-site construction, as suggested by the Council. 12. In order to safeguard the living conditions of neighbours, I agree with the Council that conditions are required to prevent use of the residual flat roof space over the outrigger as a balcony or terrace, and to control the glazing within the dormer’s side facing window but have altered the suggested wordings for clarity. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR