®Planning appeal decision
Elm Court Marlborough Road, HAMPTON, TW12 3RX
described on the application form as “side and rear extension to ground floor. First floor side extension and addition of bay window to front LHS at first floor. New Rooflights to side and rear
- Authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Poole S
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of host property and the surrounding area
- whether the proposed development would be safe for future occupiers, with particular regard to fire safety
What decided it
The extensive footprint of the ground floor extension would be an overly dominant and disproportionate addition with no public benefits to justify the less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of a non-designated heritage asset was not outweighed by any public benefits, resulting in dismissal of the side and rear extensions.
Framework references: 9
Plan policies cited: Policy LP1, Policy LP4, Policy D12(A)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.