Appeal 6000218

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Richmond Upon Thames 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 building and the St Matthias Conservation Area (CA).

The CA is a predominantly residential area with roads radiating out from the church of [name]. The area comprises of a wide range of Victorian building styles and forms. These line the streets with the buildings set back from the road behind small front gardens, resulting in a high quality townscape.

[address] comprises of mainly 3 and 4 storey properties with high quality Victorian detailing and materials. The host building is one half of a semi-detached pair and identified as a Building of [name]. The appeal building therefore contributes positively to the overall significance of the CA as an area of architectural and historic interest with a coherent, high quality townscape.

The roofs of the semi-detached pair consisting of the appeal building and No. 8 are not symmetrical. Number 8 appears to have been raised and altered at some point in the past. In this context, the proposal to raise the ridge of the appeal building, whilst still retaining its hipped form, would not appear out of place or incongruous.

The proposed dormer on the front roof slope would replace an existing dormer. The size and scale of the dormer would be consistent with the existing dormer and those in the semi-detached pair adjacent. The proposed window would also, in terms of its size, respect the fenestration hierarchy of the front elevation.

The proposed rear dormer would extend across approximately half of the roof slope. Its size and scale would be similar to that at No. 6 and the size of the proposed window would not appear out of scale with the fenestration on the rear elevation.

However, both the front and rear dormers include the provision of vertical railings across the window opening. It has not been put to me that these would serve any useful purpose and neither has my attention been drawn to similar examples in the locality. In this respect, the proposal seeks to introduce detailing which is not characteristic of the other buildings in [address] or the wider CA. It would result in the dormers appearing overly elaborate. This would draw the eye and they would appear as incongruous additions.

The proposed dormer to the side of the roof would be set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and well back from the front elevation of the property. For these reasons it would not appear as a bulky or disproportionate addition or fill the gap between the host building and the neighbouring semi-detached pair. However, the size of the windows would appear to make the dormer top heavy and there is a lack subdivision, which is a homogenous feature of windows in the CA.

This, together with the provision of railings to the front and rear dormers would introduce detailing which would depart from the high quality Victorian detailing which contributes to the significance of the BTM and the CA. This would result in a development which would be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the area and this would be harmful to the significance of the CA. Conditions could not be used to secure an alternative type and style of window as this would effectively result in a different development to that applied for and circumvent the statutory process for the grant of planning permission.

The moderate level of harm that would occur would be ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Policy LP3 of the LP and Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In terms of benefits, the appellant points to the scheme achieving balance and symmetry but for the reasons set out above, namely the addition of the railings, this would not be achieved. I understand that the existing unit of accommodation does not meet the [name] for a one-bedroom flat. The proposal would provide increased floorspace within the unit which would be a benefit in terms of improving the quality of the existing housing stock. There would also be an opportunity to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability of the unit. However, the public benefits which would arise from a single unit would be very limited and therefore collectively, I give these limited weight.

Section 72 (1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA and Paragraph 212 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

In this context, I find that the cumulative public benefits of the scheme carry limited weight and do not outweigh the less than substantial harm that would arise from the proposal.

Accordingly, the appeal proposal would conflict with Policies LP1, LP3 and LP4 of the LP which require high quality architectural and urban design which respects the local environment and preserves the character or appearance of the CA. There would also be conflict with Paragraph 213 of the Framework as the harm to the designated heritage asset would not have clear and convincing justification.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.