First floor front infill to house

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: 3 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013040 4 Boileau Road, Barnes, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW13 9BL • 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 Tom Holland against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA26/1130. • The development proposed is first floor front infill to house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have also considered an appeal relating to a corresponding first-floor front infill extension at the adjoining property, 2 Boileau Road (No.2)1. The proposals are closely related and have been considered together. Nevertheless, they concern separate properties, and each appeal must be determined on its individual planning merits. The appeal relating to No. 2 is the subject of a separate decision. 3. Since the Council determined the application and the appeal was submitted, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. I have determined the appeal having regard to the Framework as now published. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, its provisions concerning good design, development responding appropriately to its context and the use of safeguarding conditions do not materially alter the main considerations in this case. I am therefore satisfied that neither party would be prejudiced by my proceeding on that basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling which forms a pair with No. 2. The pair has projecting two-storey elements positioned towards its outer sides and corresponding recessed sections at first-floor level between them. This arrangement provides articulation to the frontage and gives the pair a strong degree of visual balance. 1 6013044 Appeal Decision 6013040 2 6. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and contains a mixture of terraced and semi-detached properties. There is some variation in the detailed form and appearance of dwellings along Boileau Road. Nonetheless, the appeal dwelling and No.2 are clearly perceived together as a single semi-detached composition. Their broadly symmetrical proportions, including the corresponding first-floor recesses, are readily apparent from the street and contribute positively to the street scene. 7. The proposal would construct a first-floor extension above the existing garage, substantially infilling the existing recess. The extension would remain below the principal eaves, have a flat roof and be marginally set behind the projecting two- storey element. 8. If implemented independently, the proposal would infill the recess on one side while leaving the corresponding recess at No.2 unchanged. Although relatively limited in scale, it would erode the balanced composition of the pair and result in an appreciably asymmetric, unbalanced frontage. Given the strong visual relationship between the two dwellings that change would be readily apparent from Boileau Road and would harm the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and the street scene. 9. I acknowledge that the extension would not project forward of the principal two- storey element and would remain below the principal eaves and ridge. I also note the proposed use of brickwork, fenestration and other detailing intended to match the existing dwelling. These factors would limit the prominence of the extension. However, they would not overcome the more fundamental effect of substantially infilling one of the corresponding first-floor recesses, which are important to the articulation and balanced composition of the semi-detached pair. 10. If both developments were implemented in the manner shown on the respective drawings, the matching first-floor infills would retain a symmetrical treatment of the pair. Furthermore, given the varied built development along Boileau Road, paired infill extensions would not appear overly prominent within the established street scene. 11. However, the proposal at No.2 is the subject of a separate planning application and appeal and there is no certainty that the corresponding development would be implemented. I have therefore considered whether this matter could be addressed by a planning condition. National policy and guidance require conditions to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally, sufficiently precise to make them capable of being complied with and enforced, and reasonable in all other respects. 12. Conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, or requiring matching materials and detailing, would control the form and appearance of the development at the appeal property but would not secure implementation of the corresponding development. A condition seeking to prevent or control development at the appeal site by reference to the implementation of a separate planning permission at No.2 would extend beyond the development which is the subject of this appeal and would not provide sufficient certainty that the corresponding development would take place. I am therefore not satisfied that such a condition would meet the relevant tests. Nor is there a Appeal Decision 6013040 3 planning obligation or other mechanism before me which would provide that certainty. I must therefore determine the appeal proposal on its individual planning merits. 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan ‘The best for our borough’ 2024-2039 (2025), which, amongst other things, requires development to be of high design quality and compatible with local character, including in respect of its proportions and form. It would also be contrary to the design objectives of the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2015) which seeks development that responds positively to the character of existing buildings and their surroundings. Other Matters 14. I have had particular regard to planning permission Ref 04/0273/HOT, granted in March 2004 for first-floor front infill extensions at both the appeal site and No.2. That permission concerned a single proposal encompassing corresponding development at both properties and was determined under the development plan and design guidance applying at that time, which have subsequently changed. I acknowledge that, on the evidence before me, it was not subject to a condition or other mechanism requiring the two extensions to be implemented together. Nevertheless, the earlier permission related to a materially different decision- making context, whereas the appeal before me concerns development only at the appeal site. Having regard to those differences, and to the harm I have identified if the appeal scheme were implemented independently, the previous permission does not lead me to a different conclusion. 15. I have also had regard to the appellants comments regarding previous extensions allowed at the appeal property and three other appeal decisions. Based on the evidence provided, these demonstrate that alterations to one half of a semi- detached pair do not necessarily result in unacceptable harm simply because some asymmetry would arise. However, each case turns on the particular context, architectural characteristics and effects of the development proposed. In this case, the prominence of the corresponding central recesses, their contribution to the composition of the pair and the strong visual relationship between the two dwellings distinguish the appeal property from the examples referred to. Those decisions do not therefore alter my findings. 16. The Council raised no concerns in regard to neighbouring amenity, outlook, daylight or sunlight, parking, highways, trees or flood risk. Based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree with the Council in regard to these matters. Nonetheless, an absence of harm is a neutral factor weighing neither for not against a development. Appeal Decision 6013040 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, of sufficient weight to indicate that the proposed development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. SJ Desai INSPECTOR