Appeal 6000190

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in December 2024, during the consideration of this appeal. Insofar as is directly relevant to the appeal, there are no substantive changes and no parties have been prejudiced as a result.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, No [site address] , is a flat roofed single-storey dwelling which is attached to the flank wall of No [address]. The appeal property does not reflect the character and appearance of the wider street scene and appears as an anomaly. At first glance, the dwelling looks as though it is an extension to the property at No 175 rather than as a house in its own right.

The site is located within a fairly narrow, quiet residential street. Architectural styles within the area vary. However, buildings are predominantly two storey detached and semi-detached houses with pitched roofs. In the immediate vicinity of the appeal site the majority of the roof forms are hipped. Broadly, within this same vicinity, where dwellings form part of a pair a strong sense of symmetry is present.

The proposed extension would result in the dwellings at Nos 175A and 175 appearing more clearly as a semi-detached pair. The dwelling at No 175 has a hipped roof design. The proposal would result in the dwelling at No 175A having a gabled roof. When viewed as part of the pair, the dwelling’s proposed roof form would appear visually jarring and incongruous as it would fail to reflect the design and form of the roof of the neighbouring dwelling.

Though the extended dwelling at No 175A would match the neighbouring dwelling in a number of respects, the juxtaposition between the two roof forms would be stark and the resultant pair would appear unbalanced with a limited sense of symmetry.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is clear that the conversion of hipped roofs to gabled roofs is not desirable and will not be encouraged, seemingly with the intention of preventing the loss of symmetry in semi-detached pairs amongst other things. [name] accept that this proposal is not for the conversion of an existing hip to gable, the end result in this instance would have the same lack of symmetry and visual discord the Council is trying to prevent. The SPD also sets out the importance of considering a street as a whole and ensuring that any extension complements the existing neighbourhood.

The appellant has given other examples where gabled roofs are present in the wider street scene. However, the existence of other examples is not sufficient reason to justify the grant of planning permission; each case must be determined on its own merits based on the specific circumstances at each site. These circumstances will rarely, if ever, be identical.

At the time of my site visit I was able to identify some examples of gabled roofs. These examples were, generally speaking, some distance from the appeal site and form part of a different visual context. Others differ in design terms. However, in my view, those with the most similarity to the scheme before me serve to illustrate that changes of this type can indeed cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Such examples should not excuse further unsuitable development.

I accept that the existing dwelling currently appears as an incongruous feature within the street scene. However, as set out above, the dwelling is subordinate to others in the vicinity and appears almost as an extension rather than as a separate dwelling. The scheme before me would result in the creation of a more noticeable building which would appear visually jarring within the street scene and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area in and of itself. In my view, an alternative scheme which would not cause harm and would achieve the appellant’s aims of enhancing the property and the wider street scene could be achieved on the site.

Indeed, I note that planning permission was granted for a first floor extension in June 2023 at appeal1. The permitted extension, however, is for a design which would be very similar to the scale and form of the neighbouring dwelling, including in respect of the roof form, and differs from the scheme which is currently before me in this regard. The permitted scheme would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the previously allowed scheme does not form a fallback position which adds weight in favour of allowing the appeal. Instead, it illustrates that an alternative scheme which assimilates well within its context and improves on the current appearance of the dwelling can indeed be achieved. 1 APP/L5810/D/23/3319417

For the reasons set out above I consider that the proposal would appear as a visually inappropriate and unsympathetic form of development which would be incompatible with, and would cause harm to, the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the host pair and the wider area. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, July 2018 (LP) which seeks to ensure that all development is of a high architectural and urban design quality which is compatible with local character, including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, local grain and frontages, as well as scale, height and massing. The proposal would also fail to accord with some of the guidance set out within the above-mentioned SPD which promotes high standards of design.

Furthermore, the development would fall short of the expectations of The Framework which promotes high standards of design and states that developments should be visually attractive and sympathetic to the character of the area.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted. Therefore, taking all other matters raised into account, the appeal is dismissed.