Second-floor extension and internal layout changes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010420 2 Albany Terrace, Albany Passage, Richmond, TW10 6DN • 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 R Booth against the decision of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA26/0362. • The development proposed is a second-floor extension and internal layout changes. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the development on: - • the character and appearance of the host property and the St Matthias Conservation Area, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. No. 2 forms part of a long terrace of 19th-century properties accessed from the pedestrian-only Albany Passage. The terrace has a strong sense of cohesion through its architectural form, materials and detailing, and is designated as a building of townscape merit (BTM). 4. Together with a mix of other Victorian/Edwardian buildings, it contributes to a high- quality townscape forming the St Matthias Conservation Area (SMCA), to which the terrace building makes a positive contribution to its character. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. 5. The proposal would create an additional storey to the property in the form of a mansard roof extension with a terrace area to the front, behind the existing parapet wall. Extending across the full width, it would be incongruent with the original roofscape, disrupting the rhythm and form of the building and would be contrary to Appeal Decision 6010420 2 the Council’s Housing Extensions and External Alterations SPD, which advises that roof extensions must not project beyond the ridgeline. 6. Set back behind the parapet wall, the addition would not be overly visible from the front due to the angle of view, although, as with the existing additions, there would be some visibility from along Albany Passage. The form would be significantly changed to the rear, with the roof valley infilled and squared off, which is visible from the mews development behind the appeal property. 7. The proposal closely resembles the existing addition at the neighbouring property, No. 4, and would therefore provide some consistency, including in the use of materials. Although together the two additions would create a greater visual mass. The additions at Nos. 4 and 10 were introduced some time ago, notably before the BTM designation and before the Article 4 Direction was made in 1984, which restricted permitted development rights. The majority of the properties in the terrace remain without roof extensions. Consequently, the terrace retains its overall cohesiveness, with the white-rendered parapet wall forming a defining feature and clearly delineating the roofline. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to a roof alteration allowed on appeal in Albert Road. Whilst within the SMCA and a BTM, that relates to a semi-detached property, and the decision refers to the dormer on one side of the roof slope, being smaller than the windows below and having a narrow profile. The plans are not before me, but based on these aspects, it is not directly comparable to the appeal proposal, which is to be considered on its own merits. 9. The Council officer’s report does, however, refer to two appeal decisions which were dismissed for similar proposals to other properties within Albany Terrace1. Both post-date the additions to Nos. 4 and 10, and the proposed roof alterations were found to be unsympathetic to the character of the building and its visual harmony. It was also indicated that it would make it difficult to resist further additions. There is no evidence before me or visual changes that lead me to take a different view. 10. Thus, the proposal would diminish and detract from the character and appearance of the BTM and would fail to preserve the significance of the SMCA derived from the quality and unity of the buildings within it. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the Richmond Local Plan (2025) which require high-quality design that respects local character, to conserve and, where possible, take opportunities to make a positive contribution to, the historic environment, including the significance and setting of non-designated heritage assets. 11. The effect on the SMCA would be less than substantial. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant is investing in the property and there would be some economic benefit during the construction phase. However, the additional living space would primarily benefit the occupiers and would not outweigh the harm to the heritage asset, to which paragraph 212 of the Framework requires great weight to be given. 1 14 and 24 Albany Terrace Appeal Decision 6010420 3 Privacy 12. The proposed terrace would span the width of the property but would be limited in depth and set back from the front elevation, with the existing parapet wall providing screening. The parapet would not be high enough to prevent views over it when standing next to the wall, but it would restrict views when seated and from within the proposed bedroom. 13. The building is located within a close-knit residential area, with the gardens positioned to the front of properties. Although some additional enclosure has been introduced through fencing and/or planting, the gardens adjoin Albany Passage, and there is already a level of mutual overlooking from neighbouring properties. As such, I do not find that the introduction of the terrace would significantly reduce the level of privacy currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers or cause unacceptable harm to their amenity. 14. The proposed development would therefore accord with Richmond Local Plan Policy 46, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that standards of privacy are retained and that development does not cause unacceptable levels of overlooking. Other Matters 15. The Council’s decision notice included a third reason for refusal relating to noise concerns associated with an air conditioning unit on the terrace. This could be addressed by submitting acoustic information and/or imposing a condition limiting the noise level. Nevertheless, as the appeal is to be dismissed on other grounds, this is not determinative and it is only annotated as a potential a/c unit on the plans. Therefore, I have not considered this matter further. Conclusion 16. I have not found that the proposal would harm neighbouring occupiers’ privacy, and any potential noise issues could be addressed through further details or appropriate controls. However, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the building and would fail to preserve the St Matthias Conservation Area. For these reasons, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the appeal is dismissed. G Ellis INSPECTOR