Planning Appeal

Richmond upon Thames Planning Authority refused permission for a two storey side extension and a part two storey rear extension to this dwelling in the Sheen Common Road Conservation Area. The Planning Officer deemed the proposal would constitute unsympathetic and overly-dominant additions and would unacceptably detract from the original character and proportions of the house, failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the streetscene and surrounding conservation area.

Cameron Jones Planning appealed this decision with the Planning Inspectorate, arguing the proposal would assimilate better with the original dwelling and provide a connected design. The significance of the heritage asset of the Sheen Common Drive Conservation Area on this part of Berwyn Road is the high quality individually designed large detached houses set in generous gardens. The application plot is wide and could comfortably accommodate the proposed two-storey and single-storey extensions and roof additions.

The Planning Inspector accepted our case and allowed the appeal.

This scheme for a full width ground floor rear extension, and rooflights to the front elevation, was refused by the Council for being an unsympathetic and incongruous form of development which failed to preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding Cole Park Road Conservation Area and this Building of Townscape Merit.

Cameron Jones Planning highlighted inconsistencies in the Council’s decision making through similar approved schemes nearby. All were considered to be subservient and of a good design which did not harm the overall character and appearance of the host dwelling. This scheme did not dominate the house. The use of modern materials highlighted it as an obvious addition, not detracting from the architectural merit of this Richard Roe designed building.

The Planning Inspector agreed with Cameron Jones Planning’s statement of case and allowed the appeal.

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.