Appeal 3323792

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a Loft conversion including replacement of existing front windows at [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/0171/HOT, dated 20 January 2023, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A100; A101; A102; A103; A104; A105; A106; A107; A108; A109; A111; A112 and A115.

The external surfaces of the building (including fenestration) shall not be constructed other than in materials to match the existing and in accordance with details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] prepared by JEYH Ltd, ref, A115 received on 20 January 2023 and retained as such thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, including on the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, terrace dwelling which is located in a row comprising of similar properties.

The site is within [address] Conservation Area (CA) which was designated in

The CA comprises predominantly modest Victorian style tight-knit terraces of two storeys with some Georgian and later Edwardian development. The Victorian designs utilise a basic design and plan form with shallow pitched roofs, brick soldier course lintels, ground floor canted bay windows and stone cills. The buildings in the CA tend to be set back from the street with small planted front gardens and maintain much of their historic detailing. The appeal property is reflective of the CA.

[address] Extensions and [name] (May 2015) (SPD) states, amongst other things, that roof extensions should not dominate the original roof.

The proposed dormer on the main roof slope would be a significant addition to the roof of the dwelling although it would not project above the ridgeline of the dwelling and would be set up from the eaves by about 0.5m and in from the boundary with [address] by the same distance. Windows within the dormer would also be of a matching ‘sash’ design and would be smaller than those on the floor below.

The proposed dormer on the outrigger would also be set up from the eaves of the outrigger by 0.5m and would have a depth of around 2.1m. The dormer would be set back from the rear wall of the outrigger by about 2.4m.

The proposed dormers would be clad in slate tiles and would match the appearance of the existing roof. They would also match the appearance of the dormer extensions to the adjoining dwelling, [address]. I consider that the siting and design of the dormers would be appropriate in this context and that they would appear as a proportional and balanced addition to the host property which would not be materially harmful to its character and appearance. The proposal would not be contrary to the main design objectives of the SPD or the [address] Conservation Area Statement and Appraisal (the [name]) which aims to ‘prevent poor quality and disproportionate roof additions’.

In terms of the wider spatial context, the Council acknowledge the presence of other similar structures along the terrace, including at the adjoining dwelling, [address], and at Nos 10, 12 and [address]. However, they state that these were constructed using permitted development rights prior to the CA’s designation. This is not entirely the case as the appellant has highlighted an example at [address] where a similar ‘L’ shaped dormer extension was granted planning permission in 2020, after the area had been designated as a CA.

I noted at my site visit that similar structures are common place not only within the same terrace as the appeal property but also on the rear roof slopes of dwellings in nearby roads including the adjacent stretch of [address] and [address]. Notwithstanding the fact that many of these dormers were built under permitted development and pre-dated CA designation, they do nonetheless form a characteristic part of the CA’s roofscape and should not be disregarded in any assessment of the proposal.

The proposed roof dormers would barely be visible from public vantage points as they would largely be screened from [address] by the existing roof extensions to Nos 2 and [address]. Views from [address] would also be limited and any glimpses that might be obtainable would be in the same context as the roof additions to other dwellings within the terrace.

In view of this context, the proposed dormers would be barely distinguishable or appreciable either in respect of their impact on the host dwelling or the wider CA. Accordingly, the proposal would have a neutral effect on its surroundings and consequently, the CA’s character and appearance would be preserved.

The statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (the Framework) states, amongst other things, that the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness should be taken into account in determining applications. Paragraph 199 of the Framework also advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. However, for the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the host property and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Hence, the appeal proposal would satisfy the requirements of the Act and the design and heritage aims of Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018); Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Chapters 12 and 16 of the Framework and the [address] [name].

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.