Appeal 3279981

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. The Council, in its decision notice, described the proposed development in the same way as that set out on the appeal form and added a reference to “1 rooflight on rear roof slope.”

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Mortlake Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a two storey, bay-fronted semi-detached period property with an attractive hipped roof and dates from the 19th Century. It has an attached single storey garage to the side and has been extended at ground floor level to the rear. Like its adjoining neighbour, Number [address], it has a two storey outrigger to the rear.

The pair of dwellings face towards [address] and as such, are set perpendicular to their neighbours – rows of houses fronting [address] and [address]. This and the presence of a footpath alongside the side of the appeal property results in glimpses through to its side and rear from numerous locations.

The appeal property is located within a residential area and is situated within the Mortlake Conservation Area, which has a historic core at [name] and is characterised by the presence of many fine 18th Century buildings, respected and complemented by later development. Whilst there are contrasts in the scale of buildings, a shared robust utilitarian conformity in the use of brickwork and detailing combines with greenery and views to provide for a cohesive character.

Many of the period features of the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour have been retained. Whilst changes over the years have resulted in differences between the two dwellings, the overall roof form, front elevation, rear outriggers and materials provide for an attractive sense of symmetry and together, the dwellings make a positive contribution to their surroundings.

The Council’s concerns focus on the proposed first floor extension. This would comprise a flat-roofed addition to the side of the outrigger.

I find that this would appear as an awkward addition, due to the proposal’s introduction of massing adjacent to the outrigger at first floor level in combination with its flat-roofed form. The scale and flat roof of the proposed development would result in it failing to integrate with the established hipped slate roof of the appeal property. It would visually jar with, detract from and unbalance, the symmetry afforded by the rear outriggers of Nos 77 and 79. 10.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent position of the proposed addition – being prominently sited at first floor level – such that it would draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature when seen from various locations with views through to the side and rear of the appeal property. 11.Consequently, the proposal would comprise an unsympathetic addition. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the Mortlake Conservation Area. Having regard to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I find that the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 13.In this respect, there is no substantial evidence to demonstrate that there are any benefits that would amount to such public benefits that they would outweigh the harm identified. 14.Consequently, I find that the proposal would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the Mortlake Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan1 Policies LP1, LP3 and LP4, and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): [name] and Alterations (2015), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Reference: Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2018). 2