Appeal 3330337

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed alterations and additions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the [address] street scene, and the Cambridge Park Conservation Area.

The appeal dwelling, No. [site address] , is a late 19th century two-storey detached house (plus basement) located in a residential side road within the conservation area. In its position on the north east side of the road the house is somewhat set apart from its nearest neighbours, No. [address] to the north and [address] to the south. The latter is a [name]* listed building and, as such, shares with the Conservation Area the status of ‘a designated heritage asset’.

This gap between No. 42 and the nearest buildings on this side of the road means that the appeal property ‘stands-alone’ in the street scene. And whilst this can have the advantage of any alterations and additions not being closely read with immediately adjoining neighbours, the drawback is that the appeal dwelling is particularly prominent in views in both directions along [address].

No. 42 does not appear to have had any extensions or external alterations since it was built, certainly not in views from the road. As such, it is an excellent example of the architecture of its period and is distinctive not just because of the difference in appearance with the other houses on both sides of the road but also particularly due to its noticeable height to width ratio.

In its current original form this is not displeasing because the combination of the building’s prominence and height gives emphasis to the noteworthy relationship between the crown roof, the parapet walls and the chimneys. As a result, the appearance this part of the building makes a significant and positive contribution to its overall character. The height of the building relative to the surrounding buildings is thereby acceptable and is not perceived as being overly dominant because it clearly derives from its legitimacy as an unspoilt example of a late [postcode] Victorian villa.

However, whilst the appeal scheme is ostensibly a reasonable architectural solution to provide the required additional accommodation, the alterations would in my view inevitably draw the eye as a somewhat contrived and jarring feature that would detract from the visual merit of the building itself, the street scene and the setting of the listed [address]. The additional bulk of the roof would be overly dominant and inevitably upset the existing balance between this part of the building and the first floor and ground floor feature windows.

I have had regard to the arguments made in the appellant’s grounds of appeal, but they do not alter my view that the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the [address] street scene, and the Cambridge Park Conservation Area. This would harmfully conflict with Policies LP1, LP2 & LP3 of the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2018; the [address] Extensions and [name] 2015; the St Margaret’s Village Planning Guidance 2016, and with Government policy in Section 16: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the [name] of the National Policy Framework 2023 (‘the Framework’).

As required by the Framework’s paragraph 208, because the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and [address] as designated heritage assets, I have weighed this harm against any public benefits. However, whilst there would be a minor economic benefit to the local economy as a result of the building work, this would be insufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified in this

For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.