Richmond Upon Thames

Cameron Jones Planning were successful in gaining planning permission by appeal for the enlargement of an existing dormer for a semi-detached chalet bungalow. The Council refused the application on the basis of the dormer being overly dominant, visually intrusive, and unsympathetic to the character of the area. Our appeal statement argued recent similar approvals in the area. The Planning Inspector concluded that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property or the locality.

Appeal allowed and planning permission gained for a two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension, the conversion of the existing garage to a habitable room, a loft conversion to a habitable room and two rear dormer extensions at this detached dwelling in Hampton.

We managed all planning elements of an initial successful application for the two-storey side extension, dormer extensions and garage conversion. A subsequent application for the rear extension was refused by the Local Planning Authority. We took this to appeal arguing the high standard of design, lack of neighbour impact and compliance with policy. The Planning Inspector agreed with our case and awarded planning permission.

Cameron Jones Planning successfully argued against the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames’s decision to refuse this application in the Hampton Village Conservation Area. Their decision was based on design, heritage, tree and ecology issues. We built a strong case against the Council’s mistaken view that the building is a locally listed heritage asset. With expert bat and arboricultural opinion, our planning appeal statement put a strong case for the two-storey rear, single storey side, and basement extensions. The Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments and allowed the appeal.

We prepared and submitted the appeal against the refusal of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames to grant planning permission for this two storey, semi-detached dwelling in the East Sheen Conservation Area. The Council objected to the two-storey extension of the rear outrigger and hipped-roof dormer. Their case had not been based on a site visit and had not taken account other developments in the area. We successfully argued the proposal would not be out of character with the surrounding area and would match the scale, form and appearance of the host dwelling.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed alterations would be appropriately sympathetic and respectful to the character and appearance of the existing building in terms of siting, design, height, bulk and mass.