Appeal 6000202

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for demolition of the existing roof and construction of a new roof with a raised ridge line, including the addition of a dormer on the rear elevation and three skylights on the front slope of the roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/2945/HOT, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 6WR-PL-03 Existing and [name]; 6WR-PL-04 Existing and Proposed Roof Plan; 6WR-PL-05 Existing and [name]; 6WR-PL-07 Existing and [name]; 6WR-PL-08 Existing and [name]; 6WR-PL-09 Existing and [name]; 6WR-PL-10 existing and Proposed Section A-A; and Location Plan dated 26 November 2024

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The roof lights hereby permitted shall be installed so that they sit flush with the roof plane and once installed shall be retained as such.

The proposal was described on the planning application form and on the Council’s decision notice in the terms set out in the banner heading above. However, in my formal decision I have carried out a minor alteration to the description to ensure that the formal decision is clear.

The Richmond Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) [name] dated June 2023 has reached an advanced stage of preparation with the main hearings having taken place and the examining Inspector’s report awaited. However, I have not been advised whether there are any unresolved objections or outstanding requirements for modifications, particularly in respect of Policies 28, 29 and 30 which are referenced in the Council’s reason for refusal. Therefore, I have assessed the proposal against the adopted policies of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan, adopted July 2018 (LP).

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the group value of Buildings of [name] (BTM) and the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA comprises of a collection of interesting and well-detailed buildings which are predominantly Victorian, along rows of streets arranged in a grid pattern. Constructed in high quality materials, the buildings also display high quality architectural detailing. Every alternate plot on [address] has a detached three bay wide house with a central entrance, retaining much of its original Edwardian detailing. The appeal dwelling is one such building and recognised as a BTM, together with Nos 8 and 10, as being of considerable local importance due to its historic and architectural interest. These buildings are easily distinguishable within the street scene from the intervening plots which were later infilled with groups of two to three houses.

The appeal building, together with Nos 8 and 10, therefore contributes positively to the overall significance of the CA as an area with a mix of interesting and well-detailed Victorian terraced properties and Edwardian houses displaying high quality design and materials, all forming a coherent and attractive area of townscape.

Raising the ridge height is not encouraged in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document adopted May 2015 (SPD). However, in this instance the minor increase to the ridge height of the building would not alter the contribution that the building makes to the significance of the CA. This is because the high quality detailing, materials and symmetry of the front elevation would be retained. The ridge height would match that at No. 8 and even if this has been increased from its original height at some point, I saw that consistency in ridge line heights is not a particular feature of the street.

The proposed dormer on the rear roof slope would only be set down marginally from the ridge and up from the eaves. However, it would be set well in from the eastern end of the property. This would prevent it from being seen from the street, through the gap between the host dwelling and the neighbouring property, No. 4. This would also mean that the scale of the dormer would not dominate the roof.

It would be visible from gaps in the street along [address]. I saw that other dormers on properties in [address], including those at Nos 2 and 4, were also visible from here. Notwithstanding that these may have been permitted development, they are clearly part of the overall character of the area and in this respect, the proposed dormer would not be at odds with this.

The positioning of the rooflights on the front elevation would be roughly symmetrical and they would line up with the windows on the floor below, reflecting the advice in the SPD.

Together, I find that the effect of the proposed development on the significance of host dwelling as a BTM, the contribution it makes to the group of BTM’s and the CA as a whole would be a neutral one in this instance. In reaching this view, I have had regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

Accordingly, no harm would arise and the significance of the heritage assets would be preserved. As such, I find no conflict with Policies LP1, LP3 and LP4 of the LP, which seek high quality architectural and design quality which conserves the historic environment, including BTM’s and the significance of conservation areas.

The grid pattern layout of the existing houses means that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking such that the proposed dormer window would not result in additional overlooking to an unacceptable extent. Given the separation distance between the appeal property and those on [address], the minor increase in roof height would not result in any greater impact on daylight, sunlight or lead to overshadowing.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. In addition, conditions to secure matching materials and flush fitting rooflights are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the CA. It would not be reasonable to impose a condition requiring the number of rooflights to be reduced to 2 given my findings above and because I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the submitted plans which indicate 3 rooflights.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.