← News · Published 29 August 2026
Richmond refused a side and rear extension as a dominant, character-harming addition - and the Inspector agreed the harm was real. The appeal was allowed anyway, because of what the homeowner could already build without needing permission at all.
Richmond's refusal reason was scale, design and character. The council found the cumulative impact of the extension's design, siting, scale and bulk would be dominating and intrusive, undermining the character of the host dwelling and visible from the street - contrary to the Richmond Local Plan policy LP 28 and the council's House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document.
The Inspector agreed with the council on the main issue: due to the property's prominent position at the end of a cul-de-sac, the extended side elevation would be a dominant addition, eroding the uniformity of the street and conflicting with the development plan.
But the homeowner also raised a fallback position - an already-approved permission for a 6 metre deep rear extension, plus permitted development rights allowing a full-depth side extension up to half the width of the original house. The Inspector found this fallback had a real, more-than-theoretical prospect of being built if the appeal failed, and that it would cause comparable harm to the appeal scheme - largely because the same prominent side element would exist in both. Given that comparable harm was likely regardless of the decision, the Inspector gave the fallback great weight, concluding it justified departing from the development plan.
This case is different from a typical evidence gap - the council's character assessment wasn't wrong. The gap was in what the refusal didn't grapple with:
An existing permission on the site wasn't weighed against the refusal's practical effect. The homeowner already held an approved permission for a substantial rear extension. Refusing the combined scheme didn't prevent that from being built regardless.
Permitted development rights weren't addressed either. A full-depth side extension up to half the width of the house could likely be built without needing planning permission at all - meaning much of the harm the council was trying to prevent could happen anyway.
The refusal assessed the scheme in isolation, not against the realistic alternative. Once the Inspector compared the appeal scheme to what could be built via the fallback, the two caused comparable harm - which is what ultimately outweighed the conflict with the development plan.
Send us your decision notice and we'll give you an honest read on whether an existing fallback position could work in your favour on appeal - and whether Planzo's no win, no fee planning appeal service is the right fit for your case.
