Appeal 3299679

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey, side infill extension to rear; demolition of existing old UPVC conservatory to be replaced with double storey side extension at [site address] , [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/0766/HOT dated 7 March 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with particular reference to outlook and visual impact.

The appeal property is designated as a Building of [name] (BTM), a locally listed building. The Council’s SPD1 explains that these are buildings that may not possess sufficient interest to warrant statutory listing, but ‘are of significance to the history and character of the environment’. It is a heritage asset in the terms of the Framework2, albeit non-designated. 1 Buildings of [name], Supplementary Planning Document 2015 2

The property stands within a short cul-de-sac. Both sides of the road are lined with terraced dwellings of similar designs. The appeal property is at the end of one of the terraces, beyond which are trees leading to a railway cutting. The Council has not identified or assessed the particular significance of the appeal property but describes the dwellings within the terrace as being characterised by their canted bay windows, overhanging corbelled eaves and decorative terracotta elements. Also, their front elevations are predominantly red-bricked.

Both terraces are attractive, notwithstanding that some have been rendered or painted, and in one case, unsympathetically extended to the side. I note from the Borough’s register of BTM that all the properties in the street are so designated. Judging from this and my own observations, the appeal property’s significance, to my mind, derives from its contribution in being part of an attractive terrace. The front elevation of the terrace, taken as a whole, contributes positively to the local townscape.

The appeal property’s side and rear elevations contrast sharply with the front in terms of form, appearance and materials. Rather than the striking red brick at the front, the other elevations are comprised of [name] brickwork. There is none of the stylish embellishment or decoration seen at the front, all is rather plain. More significantly, the appeal property’s side and rear elevations are concealed from general view and are very well screened by trees.

In the light of the above, the two proposed extensions, being restricted to the rear of the property, would have no material impact on the building’s intrinsic qualities from which it derives its’ significance, or on the street, or public realm. As to design, the Council’s comments unfavourably on the modernity of the proposed fenestration and the proposed limited area of flat roof. However, I do not share the Council’s view on these matters. To my mind, the extensions are well designed in the sense that they are of an appropriate scale, form and appearance, which will marry harmoniously with the host property without causing harm.

I conclude that the proposed extensions would sit acceptably in their restricted visual and spatial contexts without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, the proposals accord with those provisions of LP3 policies LP1 and LP4 in that their design demonstrates a thorough understanding of the site, relates well to its existing context, and preserves the significance, character and setting of a non-designated heritage asset.

The proposals involve a single storey infill extension, with the side wall being taken to the common boundary with No.[address]. The Council’s SPD4 on extensions provides that infill extensions to Victorian properties, as is this, are fairly typical around the Borough. It provides a guideline to the effect that where the depth of the extension exceeds 3m, as would be the case here, the eaves height should be limited to 2.2m to mitigate the sense of enclosure to the immediate neighbouring residents. 3 Richmond Local Plan 2018 4 [name] and [name], Supplementary Planning Document 2015 2

The proposed eaves level exceeds the guideline provided in the SPD by about 300mm. Some side windows in No 10 would look out at the proposed side wall of the extension. However, the outlook from these windows is currently limited and constrained, being towards a fence on the common boundary, and No 11’s two storey side elevation.

Having looked closely at this aspect during my site visit, I take the view that the eaves height proposed, being only slightly above that advised in the SPD, would not materially affect the outlook from No 10. Nor would the proposal, in comparison with what would be acceptable in the terms of the SPD’s guidelines, prove to be visually intrusive to neighbouring residents. Whilst not decisive in my considerations, I note that, on being consulted on the proposal, No 10’s residents did not object.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development could proceed without harming neighbouring living conditions. Accordingly, I find no conflict with that provision of LP policy L8 requiring all new development to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupants of existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

Having regard to both main issues identified at the outset, I have found that the proposal is acceptable. I shall therefore consider the issue of conditions.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose a condition in respect of external materials, although it will vary from that suggested by the Council.

It is necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

To ensure compliance with policy D12 of the London Plan I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition relating to [name].

The footprints of the approved extensions do not affect any trees. However, to gain access to the rear of the property to construct the development, it is likely that building contractors will need to use land to the side of the house. Should this be the case it is possible that some trees may need removing or become damaged. The Council’s condition in respect of trees has been noted, but as far as I am aware, there is no plan showing “retained trees”. In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose different conditions requiring any trees on site to be recorded and any removed during construction to be replaced.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations including the references to the planning history, to the London Plan and the Framework, but none outweighs those considerations which led me to my