For a single-storey external porch extension, timber cladding to front elevation, replacement timber cladding to rear elevation at first floor level, replacement of dilapidated concrete tiled roof with zinc standing seam, replacement windows, entrance door and garage doors, new front garden hard and soft landscaping works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 June 2026 by Kim Vo MPLAN Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008641 22 Upper Park Road, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 5LD • 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. Scott Rowe against the decision of Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 25/03267/HOU. • The development proposed is for a single-storey external porch extension, timber cladding to front elevation, replacement timber cladding to rear elevation at first floor level, replacement of dilapidated concrete tiled roof with zinc standing seam, replacement windows, entrance door and garage doors, new front garden hard and soft landscaping works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey external porch extension, timber cladding to front elevation, replacement timber cladding to rear elevation at first floor level, replacement of dilapidated concrete tiled roof with zinc standing seam, replacement windows, entrance door and garage doors, new front garden hard and soft landscaping works at 22 Upper Park Road, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 5LD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03267/HOU, 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 numbers: TP(00)01 Rev. TP1 (Site Location Plan); TP(00)03 Rev. TP1 (Proposed Block Plan); TP(00)05 Rev. TP1 (Proposed Site Plan); TP(10)11 Rev. TP1 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan); TP(10)12 Rev. TP1 (Proposed First Floor Plan); TP(10)13 Rev. TP1 (Proposed Roof Plan); TP(11)11 Rev. TP2 (Proposed Front West and Rear East Elevations); TP(11)12 Rev. TP2 (Proposed Side South and North Elevations); TP(20)01 Rev. TP2 (Proposed External Materials); TP(20)02 Rev. TP2 (Proposed Front Garden Landscaping Materials); and TP(90)01 Rev. TP2 (Existing and Proposed Window Sections). 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Safety Statement submitted on 18 December 2025. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Appeal Decision 6008641 2 Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 3. Kingston’s Local Plan is currently progressing towards a public consultation. However, I am not aware of its exact stage of preparation, the extent of any unresolved objections, or whether the policies will be considered consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Consequently, and whilst I have taken it into account, I have considered the appeal under the adopted development plan at the time. 4. The Council raised no objections to the porch, zinc roof, replacement windows and doors, the new front garden or hard and soft landscaping works. I find no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focuses on the timber cladding. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the Kingston Hill/Coombe Hill Strategic Area of Special Character (SASC), which is a non-designated heritage asset. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site relates to a detached, two storey dwelling with existing rear extensions at ground and first floor. Its front and side elevations are finished in a combination of brickwork and render, painted in a light grey colour. To the rear, the upper half of the elevation is clad in horizontal light grey timber, with the lower section, serving the single storey rear extension, finished in vertical dark grey timber cladding. It is situated within a low density, residential area comprising large dwellings that adjoin Richmond Park, a Grade I listed park and garden. 6. Upper Park Road features a notable degree of variation, with a diverse range of architectural styles and materials. Whilst many dwellings retain a traditional character, typically featuring red brickwork, mock Tudor detailing, and partial use of white or cream render, a number have undergone modern alterations introducing more contemporary materials and finishes. These include light coloured brickwork, more extensive rendered grey and white elevations, as well as a mix of timber, composite, stone, and tiled cladding. Collectively, this variety contributes positively to the visual richness within the residential, suburban SASC. 7. Dark grey vertical timber cladding is proposed across the majority of the front elevation and at first floor to the rear. This would result in a predominantly dark finish, where such an extensive use does not currently exist along the street scene. Nevertheless, its introduction would integrate well with the surrounding context and contribute to the diverse range of modern materials already present. The dark grey cladding would also be broken up by light timber vertical cladding to the front entrance and garage door. The existing house already presents a solid and contrasting appearance within the street scene, due to its fully grey front and side elevations. It therefore already has a distinct character, and the proposal would maintain this differentiation. 8. Landscaping works for hedging, an ornamental tree and planting are proposed within the front garden, which would further soften the appearance of the cladding. Moreover, given the simple design of the appeal property, it is not strongly associated with the designation of the SASC, which is primarily defined by Victorian mansions. The proposed cladding would not therefore detract from, or erode, the character of this non-designated heritage asset. Appeal Decision 6008641 3 9. For these reasons, the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area or the SASC. Accordingly, it would comply with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies CS 8, DM 10 and DM 12 of the Core Strategy 2012. Together, and amongst other things, these seek proposals to relate well and connect to its surroundings, respect the character of a street or area, respect features of local importance and special interest, enhance local context by responding to local distinctiveness, and conserve the significance of heritage assets and their settings. Other Matters 10. The appeal site adjoins the Grade I listed Richmond Park to the rear, which is also designated as a National Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest, Conservation Area and a Special Area of Conservation. This extensive area of publicly accessible green space derives its significance from its historic and cultural value as a park, and has ecological and biodiversity interest. 11. Despite its proximity, the appeal property is well separated from the park by its long rear garden and established boundary treatment. The proposed works are minor in nature and primarily comprise external alterations to the dwelling’s finish. As such, they would not adversely affect the park or its setting’s significance, particularly given its location within a residential area, where a range of domestic extensions and alterations have already occurred. Mature trees along the boundary would also limit views of the appeal property. The openings at the rear, which face onto the park, would be the same size as the existing, and no additional lighting features are proposed. Therefore, light spill towards the park would remain unchanged from the existing situation. Conditions 12. To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and specify the approved plans. The materials are shown thereon and are acceptable. There is therefore no need for a further condition. A condition is also necessary to ensure the development incorporates necessary fire safety measures, in accordance with Policy D12 of the LP. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith.  Kim Vo APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the above conditions. John Morrison INSPECTOR