Part single / part double storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 August 2026 By SJ Desai BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011863 68 Barnes Avenue, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 9AJ. • 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 William Christopher Byrne against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA26/1033. • The development proposed is part single / part double storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single / part double storey extension at 68 Barnes Avenue, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 9AJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference PA26/1033 and the plans submitted with it, 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: KTD-01, KTD-02, KTD-03 REV A and KTD-99 Fire Safety Statement. 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. 4) The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. Preliminary Matter 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. However, I am satisfied that the policy approach relevant to this appeal has not fundamentally changed and that no party has been prejudiced by its publication. Accordingly, I have had regard to the current version of the Framework in reaching my decision. 3. The appellant submitted revised drawings with the appeal to correct a discrepancy between the floor plans and elevations concerning the arrangement of an existing rear window and door. The change does not alter the scale, form or siting of the proposed extension or the matters which led to the Council's refusal. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my consideration of these drawings and I have determined the appeal on that basis. Appeal Decision 6011863 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within an established residential area. It occupies an irregularly shaped plot close to the junction of Barnes Avenue and Verdun Road. The neighbouring dwelling at 86 Verdun Road (No.86) is positioned at an angle to the appeal property, reflecting the different alignment of the two streets. 6. The proposal comprises a part single and part two-storey extension to the side of the dwelling. The Council raises no objection to the single-storey element, which is substantially the same as development previously granted planning permission. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. 7. The first-floor element would be approximately 3m wide at the front and would be set back around 0.75m from the original front elevation. Its ridge would also be approximately 0.4m below that of the existing dwelling. The extension would initially be set approximately 0.75m from the side boundary. However, because the boundary splays towards the dwelling, it would meet and follow the boundary towards the rear. 8. The Council's House Extensions and External Alterations Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (the SPD) advises that two-storey side extensions should normally be positioned at least 1m from the side boundary and that development which significantly reduces an important space or gap between neighbouring houses will not normally be acceptable. The proposal would not accord fully with this guidance. However, the SPD is guidance and the proposal must be assessed having regard to the particular characteristics of the site and its effects on the host dwelling and surrounding area. 9. The relationship between the appeal property and No.86 is unusual. The properties address different streets and are not positioned parallel to one another. The splayed boundary and differing building alignments mean that the proposed first- floor extension would not directly align with No.86. A visible separation would also remain towards the front of the site, where the relationship would be most apparent from the street. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the proposal would result in the two properties appearing joined or give rise to a harmful terracing effect. The possibility that No. 86 might itself be extended in the future does not alter my finding. 10. The proposal would reduce the existing gap with No.86 and would not maintain the separation sought by the SPD for the full depth of the first-floor extension. However, because of the orientation of the buildings, views towards this space from Barnes Avenue and Verdun Road are principally oblique and relatively limited. Moreover, the open and verdant character around the junction is more readily defined by the highway verges, trees and other vegetation than by the space between these particular dwellings. Given these site-specific circumstances, I am satisfied that the harm which the SPD guidance seeks to avoid would not arise. Appeal Decision 6011863 3 11. The appeal property forms a semi-detached pair with 66 Barnes Avenue. The extension would be positioned on the opposite side of the dwelling and, given its set back and lower ridge, would remain subordinate to the host building. Consequently, it would not materially undermine the appearance or legibility of the semi-detached pair. 12. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan ‘The best for our borough’ - 2024 to 2039 (2025) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is compatible with local character. For the same reasons, the proposal accords with overall design objectives of the SPD. Conditions 13. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered having regard to the tests of policy DM6 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the statutory time limit, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. As the submitted Fire Safety Statement is included within the approved documents secured by that condition, a separate condition requiring compliance with it is unnecessary. A condition requiring external materials to match the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of character and appearance. A condition, with wording amended for clarity, restricting the use of the roof area of the extension is necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 14. A condition relating to non-road mobile machinery is not necessary or proportionate, having regard to the limited scale and nature of the development. I have not included the Council's suggested informatives as they largely relate to matters governed by other legislation or provide general advice and are not necessary for the determination or implementation of this appeal. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR