Construction of a new entrance porch incorporating an accessibility lift serving all levels; conversion of the existing attached garage into a habitable room; formation of a front lightwell with external stair access to the basement; addition of a first-floor side extension (East) above the existing garage footprint; addition of a first-floor side extension (West) above the existing ground floor family room; construction of a two-storey rear extension to expand living accommodation; reconfiguration of the roof to accommodate two new bedrooms; modification of the

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2026 by S Jamieson BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by L C Hughes BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008600 12 Coombe Ridings, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 7JT • 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 & Mrs Aslam against the decision of Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 25/02361/HOU. • The development proposed is construction of a new entrance porch incorporating an accessibility lift serving all levels; conversion of the existing attached garage into a habitable room; formation of a front lightwell with external stair access to the basement; addition of a first-floor side extension (East) above the existing garage footprint; addition of a first-floor side extension (West) above the existing ground floor family room; construction of a two-storey rear extension to expand living accommodation; reconfiguration of the roof to accommodate two new bedrooms; modification of the front façade to reflect and support the proposed internal layout changes. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the Kingston Hill/Coombe Hill Strategic Area of Special Character (SASC); and • the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 11 and 13 Coombe Ridings, with particular regard to privacy and noise. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 4. Coombe Ridings is a gated, tree-lined cul-de-sac characterised by substantial detached dwellings set within generous plots. While there is variety in the age, design and architectural style of properties, brick facing materials, traditional fenestration patterns and hipped and gabled roof forms are common features. The appeal dwelling falls within the SASC, which is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) Appeal Decision 6008600 2 5. The appeal property is set back from the road behind a parking forecourt and a soft landscaped frontage incorporating entrance gates and pillars. Although it occupies a substantial plot, it sits relatively close to its shared boundaries with Nos 11 and 13. However, the existing single-storey side elements provide visual relief, maintaining a sense of space between the buildings. To the rear, an extensive garden enclosed by mature trees creates a private and secluded setting. The garden backs on to a wider wooded area, beyond which is the Coombe Wood Golf Course. Overall, the appeal dwelling sits comfortably between Nos 11 and 13 and contributes positively to the cohesive, verdant and spacious qualities of the area. 6. While the proposal would result in only a modest increase in footprint, the combined effect of the two-storey porch, first-floor side extensions, two-storey rear projection and additional loft accommodation would substantially increase the scale and massing of this already sizeable dwelling. In particular, the first-floor side extensions would largely infill the existing gaps at first floor level between the dwelling and its side boundaries. As a result, the development would reduce the sense of spacing between properties and create a noticeably more cramped form of development than currently exists. 7. Notwithstanding its set-back from the lower floors, the proposed loft addition would also be a highly prominent feature. While there is some variation in roof forms locally, roof level accommodation generally takes the form of mansard roofs and windows contained within traditional roof slopes, which limits their perceived bulk. By contrast, the proposed loft extension would incorporate a distinctly contemporary roof form which, when combined with extensive glazing and metal cladding, would further accentuate the building's increased size and prominence. 8. I find that the proposed green roofs and solar panels would have a discreet presence and would not detract from the appeal site or surrounding area. Similarly, given the variation in front projections to properties, the proposed front porch would generally be acceptable in terms of its siting, scale and design. The cumulative effect of the scale of the extensions however, the unconventional roof form, extensive glazing, metal cladding, large balconies and the overall composition of the remodelled dwelling would also result in a discordant building that would fail to integrate successfully within its plot and its immediate surroundings. 9. I do not have the full details of each of the nearby dwellings cited by the appellant, and do not know the context in which they may have achieved permission. That said, from the evidence before me and what I saw on my site visit, these examples are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme in terms of design, siting or the site-specific context, particularly in terms of the width of these plots and the space maintained between neighbouring dwellings. In any event, and despite some variation in built form, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits. Furthermore, although the site is relatively well contained, the altered building would remain clearly visible, including through and above the entrance gates and would erode the visual cohesion and spacious qualities of this part of the street. 10. I have not been directed to any special features of the SASC by the Council. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that the effect of the proposal on the significance of an NDHA should be taken into account in the determination of the application. Given the extensive area covered by the SASC and the scale of the development proposed, on balance, I find that the appeal scheme would not undermine the significance of the SASC as a whole, nor would it materially affect Appeal Decision 6008600 3 the ability to understand or appreciate its significance as an NDHA. Nevertheless, this finding does not alter my assessment of the proposal's effect on the character and appearance of its immediate surroundings. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would preserve the significance of the SASC. However, it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore fail to accord with Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Core Strategy (2012) (CS) and Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which require, amongst other things, that developments incorporate principles of good design; and that alterations preserve or enhance the established character and architectural interest of a heritage asset, its fabric or its setting. It would also be inconsistent with the good design objectives of the Framework. Living conditions 12. The Council's officer report concludes that the proposed first-floor balconies would have an acceptable effect on neighbouring living conditions in respect of privacy, subject to a condition requiring privacy screening. Having regard to the scale, siting and orientation of these features, I concur with that assessment. 13. The proposed second floor front balconies would afford occupiers of the appeal dwelling views out over the appeal dwelling’s driveway. There would also be potential for some views across the shared boundaries with Nos 11 and 13. However, given the front gardens of these properties primarily serve as parking areas, any overlooking in this regard would not likely result in a harmful loss of privacy to these neighbouring occupiers, particularly given the generous size of these plots and the mature planting present on these shared boundaries. 14. There is extensive mature planting along the shared boundaries with Nos 11 and 13 which would significantly restrict views into the neighbouring garden. Moreover, given the orientation of the appeal dwelling, set slightly back from Nos 11 and 13, and subject to a conditions requiring privacy screening to the sides of the rear terrace and windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut below 1.7m along its side elevations, I am satisfied that these elements of the appeal scheme would not give rise to undue overlooking of neighbouring gardens or windows. Similarly, I have no privacy concerns regarding the proposed flat roof elements, subject to a suitably worded condition to restrict these being used as outdoor amenity spaces. 15. Turning to noise, the rear terrace would extend the width of the rear elevation. Nevertheless, its modest depth and the fact it would serve bedrooms at either side would limit its suitability for outdoor sitting, dining or entertaining. The reconfigured dwelling would also benefit from generous internal living accommodation at ground floor level, together with direct access onto a substantial outdoor patio area. Given the limited depth of the rear balcony, I am satisfied the ground floor space would represent a more practical and attractive location for social gatherings. Consequently, I find it unlikely that the terrace would be used in a manner that would generate significant levels of noise and disturbance. Moreover, the mature landscaping along the shared boundaries would also serve to attenuate any day-to- day noise arising from use of the terrace by the occupiers. 16. Consequently, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 11 and 13, with particular regard to privacy Appeal Decision 6008600 4 and noise. It would therefore accord with Policy DM10 of the CS and Policy D3 of the LP which, insofar as they relate to the appeal, require that development proposals have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. Other Matters 17. The appeal site falls outside of but adjacent to the Coombe Wood Conservation Area (CA). I am mindful of my statutory duty under Section 72 of the Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. According to the Council’s Conservation Area 17 - Coombe Wood Planning Information document, the CA consists of 113 properties in an area of 40.6 hectares. The special character of this area has been described as large Victorian, Edwardian, and 20th century properties set in a semi- rural street scene around the open space occupied by Coombe Wood Golf Course. 18. The CA contains a number of listed buildings and features. The closest of these to the appeal site are the Grade II listed Warren House and the Garden Features at Warren House. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. 19. The Council has provided the relevant official list entries but has not alleged any direct harm to them. From the evidence before me, the significance of this building and garden features derives from their historic and architectural interest. Given the intervening land, woodland and buildings, I am satisfied that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the CA and the listed buildings and features within it. Therefore, this has not been determinative in terms of the considerations under the main issues. Conclusion and recommendation 20. The proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L C Hughes INSPECTOR