Appeal 6000122

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been issued since the Council’s decision on the application leading to this appeal. There is no need to seek the main parties’ comments on the Framework as the parts most relevant to my assessment remain largely unaltered.

The Council refers to policies LP28 and LP29 of a regulation 19 version of an emerging local plan (the eLP). [name] understand the situation, the eLP has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination but it has not yet been adopted by the Council. The eLP policies do not currently form part of the adopted development plan for the area. However, I agree with the Council and the appellant that eLP policies LP28 and LP29 should be afforded significant weight in my assessment as the eLP is at an advanced stage towards its adoption.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Central Richmond Conservation Area (the CA).

The CA covers an urban area around the former village centre to Richmond. Its significance derives from the original street patterns as well as the historic interest and architectural quality of many of its buildings of differing styles and ages.

The appeal property is in the CA albeit away from the busier and more commercial streets to the south east of Richmond Green. It is a 2 storey high dwelling originating from the 1980’s in a terrace of similar houses. Being of recent construction, No 5 and the other residences in the row are of no historic interest and they include no architectural features of any obvious quality. However, the houses are distinctive in terms of being highly consistent in appearance. They are all set at a slight angle to the road with the flat front and rear elevations of each house set back from the adjacent dwelling so as to create a regular, stepped pattern. The terrace is not recognised as possessing townscape merit in the [name], Richmond Green and Richmond Riverside Conservation Area Study. Even so, the uniform appearance and layout of the houses are visually interesting so that the row makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed alterations would not be visible from Park Lane as they would be to the back of the dwelling. Also, I am unconvinced the development would be easily seen by users of the railway line to the rear of the property as it lies within a cutting. However, the extensions and alterations would be seen from the rear gardens of the adjacent properties in the terrace. Also, there are views of No [address] of houses from the rear windows of flats on Little Green on the other side of the railway. Therefore, the proposal would have a visual effect, albeit localised and only appreciated from private properties.

From where they are seen, the proposed extensions would markedly change the rear of No 5, particularly as they would bring the rear elevation at ground and first floor levels out further into the rear garden. This would spoil the attractive, uniform stepped pattern of the houses. Also, the extension at first floor would create a narrow projection with a recess between it and the side elevation of the adjoining property. This would be at odds with the flat rear elevations of each of the buildings in the row. As such, the extensions would look incongruous and so they would undermine the appeal property’s positive contribution to the consistency of the terrace. The use of materials to match the existing house would not address the effects of the extensions in disrupting the regular pattern of the buildings.

The 2 storey element of the development would accord with guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for [name] and [name] 2015 (the SPD), which says such extensions to the rear should not be greater than half the width of the original building. However, it is clear looking at paragraph 1.1.3 of the SPD that it is not seeking to provide guidance for every eventuality and that in conservation areas greater care and attention is required. Given this context, compliance with the SPD guidelines on rear extensions fails to justify the identified harm to the character and appearance of No 5 and the locality.

The Council has already granted planning permission for a single storey extension to No 5 as well as the installation of solar panels on the roof. It is likely that this approved scheme would be carried out in the event of the appeal being dismissed and so it represents a realistic fallback position.

The approved ground floor extension would be an unusual addition and to a degree it would erode the pattern to the terrace of buildings. However, the appeal development would include the extra first floor extension that would be more noticeable from nearby properties due to its height above the ground. Consequently, the current proposal would be more detrimental to the consistency between No 5 and its neighbours when compared to the permitted scheme. As such, the fallback position fails to override or to justify the incongruity of the appeal development.

The appellant suggests the extensions would set a good precedent for additions to the other properties in the row. However, there is nothing before me to suggest similar extensions would come forward on any of the other neighbouring houses. As such, it is fair to assume the development would lead to irregularity in the terrace rather than any coordinated and consistent changes.

The Council raises no objections to the installation of the solar panels. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the locality and that it would not preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the CA. In these regards, it would not accord with policies LP1 and LP3 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2018 as well as eLP policies LP28 and LP29. Amongst other things, these look to ensure development is of high architectural quality that maintains or enhances the historic environment and conservation areas.

Given its scale and its localised visual effects, the development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework dictates the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development would not harm living conditions at any other residence. However, acceptability in these regards is a neutral factor rather than a benefit to which I attribute positive weight.

The proposed solar panels would help address the challenge of climate change by increasing the supply of renewable energy and so reducing reliance on sources of energy that increase greenhouse gas emissions. However, renewable energy generated by the development would be fairly minor and in any case it would seem likely given the development already permitted that solar panels would be provided even if this appeal is dismissed. As such, I attribute only minor weight to the public benefits that would accrue from the panels.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets such as conservation areas, irrespective as to whether any harm would be substantial or less than substantial. Therefore, I find the identified harm to the character and appearance of the locality and the significance of the CA is the overriding factor so as to outweigh any public benefits to the scheme. Therefore, insufficient justification exists to grant planning permission contrary to the identified conflict with development plan policies.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.