Appeal 3311260

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of extensions to provide a two-storey side/rear extension, a single storey rear extension, expansion of existing basement including new lightwell, replacement windows, new entrance to front elevation, new front boundary treatment, bin/cycle stores and new patio at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/2013/HOT dated 23 June 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The appeal property is sited within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). It is also 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.

The officer report dealt in some detail with several issues and the proposal was assessed with regard to neighbouring amenity, trees, local basement policy, flooding and fire safety. The Council found no objection on any of these counts, and I have no reason to disagree with the Council assessment on these matters. 1 Buildings of [name], Supplementary Planning Document 2015 2

Notwithstanding the original arrangements I carried out my visit on an unaccompanied basis. In this respect the front gate was open, and I could gain access to the rear garden along the side of the house, which was empty when I called. Otherwise, I assessed the proposal from local vantage points, from points along the [address], the [site address] station forecourt, [address] and from the pedestrian access to [name] to the rear of the appeal site.

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and whether the proposal would serve to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

The property is a semi-detached early 19th century dwelling which, according to the Council, appears to have been originally designed with its attached partner (No 93) to be perceived as a single villa. That may have been the case, but the dwelling is now clearly perceived as semi-detached, not least because of the extensive changes carried out to the front elevation of No 93. There, bow windows have been introduced at ground and lower ground levels replacing what I assume to have been matching sashed windows. A projecting plate has also been inserted which accentuates the separation between the ground and first floors.

The Council acknowledges that the property is in a rundown, dilapidated condition, and to assist with its restoration permitted a scheme in 20223 which, although involving alterations and extensions, is considered less harmful than that proposed now. That scheme was approved following negotiations to reduce the scale of the extensions initially sought – the Council feel that the appeal scheme reverts almost to the scheme previously considered unacceptable.

The Council’s concerns relate principally to the two storey addition proposed at the side and rear, which the Council says will ‘greatly affect the important symmetry of the villa pair’. Concern is also expressed at the proposed raised entrance, and the rear extension on account of its width. Taken as a whole, the Council considers that the proposals if built would appear bulky and dominant, ‘diluting what remains of the symmetry of the pair’, thus harming the character and appearance of the BTM and the wider CA.

As noted above, the villa’s original symmetry at the front has been materially affected by the changes made to the front elevation of No 93. The scheme approved in 2022, if built, would also impinge on what remained of the pair’s symmetry. Having so commented, I do not hold the permission issued by the Council in 2022 against it, since to me it represents a genuine attempt to assist in bringing new life to a building badly in need of it. However, it represents what could be built should the appellant choose to, since the permission remains extant. 3 Ref 20/3140/HOT dated 15 February 2022 2

Against this background, I do not see the appellant’s proposals in the same light as the Council. The side/rear extension would be set back, with a significantly reduced roof level in comparison with the host property, so that it would appear wholly proportionate and subservient. The main extension would not be seen when approaching from the south. Views from outside the site to the rear would be limited. It would be seen in short-range oblique views when approaching from the north along the main highway, the nearby railway embankment and bridge would otherwise largely mask views of the completed building works. Given the screening afforded by extant buildings the extensions would not be apparent from [address].

Compared with that already approved, the development proposed in my view would have but a slightly greater impact both on what remains of the integrity of the host property and its surroundings. However, that which would be seen, including the raised entrance, would not cause harm. At worse, in relation to the CA as a whole, it would have a neutral impact so that its character and appearance would be preserved.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extensions and alterations 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 LP4 policies LP1, LP3 and LP4 in that their design demonstrates a thorough understanding of the site, relates well to its existing context, and preserves the character and appearance of the CA, and the significance, character and setting of a non-designated heritage asset.

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].

I note the Council’s suggested conditions on trees and their root protection areas. However, the appellants produced an Arboricultural Impact Assessment at application stage, and the condition I shall impose in the interest of visual amenity, shall be directed to its recommendations.

The Council’s suggested landscaping condition appears to me to relate to a more major development than proposed. A landscaping scheme is however required in the interests of amenity and shall therefore be imposed.

So as to safeguard against flooding; ground instability and in the interests of fire safety protection, the Council’s suggested conditions relating to these matters are imposed.

Given the location of the site on a main highway, its restricted nature and closeness to other property the Council’s suggested condition on construction 4 Richmond Local Plan 2018 3 management is imposed, albeit in a slightly modified form, to ensure that the construction phase is carried out with as little disruption as possible.

So as to protect neighbouring privacy the Council’s suggestions as to obscure glazing of some windows and the use of flat roof areas are imposed, in a modified form.

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