Appeal 6000197

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Barnes Green Conservation Area (CA), in which the site lies, and on the host dwelling, which is identified as a Building of [name] (BTM).

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA extends along the Surrey bank of the [name] at Barnes and includes the historic core of the village and residential areas surrounding Barnes Green.

[address] parallels the Thames and has a number of 18th and 19th century buildings of exceptional quality. These include a terrace of [name] listed or BTM-designated buildings at numbers 27 to 31 (Nos. 27 to 31). Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the attractive character of its buildings, spaces and street scenes.

The appeal site consists of a two-storey dwelling said to date from the 1960s. It has a simple appearance, in contrast to the grander and taller design of adjacent properties. The dwelling is set back behind a U-shaped driveway, rather than having the forward position of other buildings nearby. The location and design of an existing side extension gives the property a slightly unbalanced front elevation, which has a mix of styles. The dwelling is in need of refurbishment, and is partially screened from the road by vegetation.

Even so, the appeal property has an attractive appearance, as reflected in its BTM designation. Its relatively clean, simple design may well have been deliberate, to contrast and not compete with the more ornate properties adjacent to it. As such, it makes a positive contribution to the CA and forms a non-designated heritage asset.

The proposal includes the replacement of the first-floor front sash windows with Juliette1 balconies, canopies at the front and side, a new garage door, as well as single storey extensions. It includes replacing the existing pantile roof covering with slates, and the erection of a front boundary wall and railings, in place of the current low wall and hedge. Sliding vehicular gates to the front are also proposed.

Juliette balconies and railings are already found on existing nearby houses on [address]. The proposed front canopy would reflect these, and existing leadwork detailing, whilst having a practical purpose. Nevertheless, the proposal taken as a whole would result in a cluttered, embellished appearance that would harmfully undermine the simple, attractive form of the existing property.

Many of the dwellings hereabouts have slate roofs. A few are visible from the road, but many others are hidden, for example by parapet walls. Pantile roofs may be less common, but those on the existing dwelling reflect an attached projection to No. 30, which has a somewhat similar hipped roof form, with both roofscapes being more visible because of their relatively low height. As such, the existing pantiles compliment the immediate context of the appeal site, as well as the colour of the brickwork of the host dwelling. Consequently, this element of the proposal would further detract from the appearance of the area.

There as an existing dwarf wall and hedge to the front which would be replaced by a wall with planting behind. However, this would be taller than others in the immediate vicinity. The sliding nature of the proposed gates would appear unduly modern, jarring with the more traditional appearance of the existing dwelling. As such, these elements would appear out of place. No. 31 has had sliding gates, and currently has tall, solid front boundary treatments. That said, full details of the planning and enforcement history of that site are not before me, limiting useful comparison.

I share the view of the parties that other elements of the proposal would represent improvements, and that the changes to the rear would be acceptable. However, these do not outweigh the harm that I have found.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole, and the host dwelling as a BTM. It would therefore conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires an acceptable form, materials and detailing. It would similarly conflict with Local Plan policies LP3 and LP4, which give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets and their significance, and seek to preserve BTMs. For the same reasons, the proposal would not accord with the similar requirements of emerging Publication Plan policies 28, 29 and 30, the 1 I have taken the spelling of the name ‘Juliette’ from that used by the parties. National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including paragraph 216, and the Act.

In the language of the Framework, the harm to the CA would be less than substantial and so should be weighed against public benefits. The proposal would increase the thermal properties of the house, and the boundary treatments would provide greater security, particularly given recent crime. I do not under-estimate these concerns, and there may not be space for more traditional, hinged gates. However, in relating to only a single dwelling, the public benefits of the proposal would be relatively small, and so do not justify the identified harm.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.