Conversion of the existing garage into habitable space including glazed windows and doors to the street frontage; A single - storey rear extension including a first-floor external balustrade and stair leading to the rear garden; Alterations to first floor rear windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 June 2026 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009070 3C Sheen Gate Gardens, London SW14 7PD • 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 Andrew Woodall against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA26/0244. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “Conversion of the existing garage into habitable space including glazed windows and doors to the street frontage; A single - storey rear extension including a first-floor external balustrade and stair leading to the rear garden; Alterations to first floor rear windows.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the erection of a single-storey rear extension including a first-floor external balustrade and stair leading to the rear garden and alterations to first floor rear windows. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted in so far as it relates to the conversion of the existing garage into habitable space including glazed windows and doors to the street frontage at 3C Sheen Gate Gardens, London SW14 7PD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA26/0244, 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 in so far as they relate to the development permitted: 2506/PL.03 and 2506/PL.04. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy, and (ii) the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. Appeal Decision 6009070 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property forms part of a terrace of four 3-storey houses that feature prominent balconies and bay windows within the street elevation. The houses have large areas of hardstanding at the front and 3 retain integral garages. 3A Sheen Gate Gardens includes a 2-storey addition and external staircase and No.3B has a first floor level balcony with a staircase leading to the garden. Living Conditions 4. The proposal would primarily comprise the erection of a full-width single-storey extension with a terrace above and a staircase linking the first floor of the property to the garden. As is commonly the case for terraced housing, the rear parts of gardens at Nos 3A to 3D are overlooked from upper floor windows in neighbouring houses, whilst the areas closest to the rear elevations provide relatively private space. The proposed terrace and staircase would enable views into these more private areas as well as obliquely towards the rear windows in the houses to either side. This arrangement would give rise to severe levels of overlooking and neighbouring residents would experience an unacceptable loss of privacy. 5. Due to their siting and elevated position, I therefore conclude that the proposed staircase and terrace would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such these elements of the proposal fail to accord with Policy 46 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2024 to 2039) (2025) (LP) which states that all development will be required to protect the amenity and living conditions for occupants of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties. There is also conflict with the aims of the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD). Character and Appearance 6. The extension would be modest in depth, and the terrace would be enclosed by railings in an arrangement similar to that at the front of the terrace and at No.3B. The new first floor level fenestration would match that elsewhere whilst the more contemporary approach adopted at ground floor level would not unacceptably disrupt the unity of the terrace. The staircase would be a prominent addition but would not be out of keeping in this particular context given the existence of similar structures at Nos 3A and 3B. 7. The proposal would also include the replacement of the garage doors at the front of the house with multi-paned windows and glazed doors. This would be similar to the ground floor arrangement at the front of the next-door property, No. 3D, and would not therefore be out of place in its immediate context. 8. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building or its surroundings. As such it accords with LP Policy 28 which requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and compatible with the local character. It also accords with the aims of the SPD in this respect. The absence of harm in this respect does not outweigh the harm identified under the first main issue. Appeal Decision 6009070 3 Conditions 9. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a materials condition is required to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring the approved development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings is imposed. Conclusions 10. Whilst I have found the single-storey rear extension to be acceptable this is not functionally or physically severable from the terrace and staircase and therefore a split decision allowing the former is not possible in this case. The alterations at the front of the appeal property would be entirely physically and functionally severable from the works to the rear so a split decision allowing this aspect of the proposal can be issued. 11. For the reasons set out under the first main issue, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail in respect of the rear extension, terrace and staircase. The appeal succeeds in respect of the alterations at ground floor level at the front of the house. S Poole INSPECTOR