Appeal 6000368

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP). The main parties were aware of what the emerging policies were at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed to the adopted versions. I have had regard to the most up to date development plan.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St Matthias Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property forms part of the St Matthias Conservation Area, and is located at the boundary of the CA, thereby forming part of the gateway views into the wider area of the CA. The CA derives considerable significance from the pattern of development, and the quality of the mid-late Victorian architecture. In the present day, the setting of the appeal property and the wider CA share a verdant nature, offered by the greenery of boundary treatments and the maturity of trees within private gardens.

As the appeal site falls within the boundaries of the CA, I am required by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The appeal site is a two-storey cottage with dormer windows forming an attic storey. The rear elevation is attached to [address], forming a semi-detached pair which wraps around the corner of [site address] and [address]. Stylistically, the attached pair share no similarities, however the appeal dwelling forms part of a pair of similar houses with a dwelling situated on the opposite side of the junction with [address].

The appeal dwelling is largely symmetrical, with a central entrance flanked by single storey round bays. At first floor level, the property is decorated with hung tiles and has three evenly spaced windows. Above, there are two flanking dormers and a centrally placed rooflight. The dormer windows are modern additions to the traditionally designed house, yet their modest size and scale and relationship with the windows below respects the character of the building, and they do not appear as incongruous impositions. The hung-tile detailing and attic dormers of the appeal dwelling allow it to cohesively integrate within the CA and form part of the high-quality townscape from which the CA derives significance. Therefore, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed development would see the existing two dormer windows and central rooflight replaced with a singular dormer window which would encompass the full width of the roof. Whilst the proposed development would see the glazed portion of the dormer separated into three windows, the dormer itself would still represent a substantial increase in mass which would result in a top-heavy appearance.

The windows in the proposed dormer would be wider and larger than those in the existing dormers and those on the floor below and so would disrupt the established hierarchy of fenestration causing harm to the appearance of the dwelling.

Particularly when viewed from the [site address] , the proposed dormer would overwhelm the roofscape due to the excessive width and bulk. While there is a similarly sized dormer on the rear, very little of it is visible, so it does not have the same impact as the proposal. This would give it undue prominence within the street scene causing harm to the host dwelling and its setting, and would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Given the scale of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be at the lower end of less than substantial in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nevertheless, I attach considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the CA. Whilst enhanced living accommodation would be provided, in the context of a single dwelling this would be a private benefit and is insufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the CA.

I am aware that there are other dormer windows within the vicinity of the appeal dwelling and I agree that the presence of dormers is an established presence within the CA and the wider street scene. However, the examples presented to me differ significantly from the proposed development in scale and their relationship with the existing fenestration of their host buildings. Also, many of these examples lie outside the boundary of the CA, where the context is different. These examples therefore have reinforced my view that the proposal would be an inappropriate form of development within the CA and do not justify the harm identified.

Taking all the above into consideration, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St Matthias Conservation Area. Consequently, it would conflict with [name] 28 and 29 which require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and to enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The proposal would also conflict with the guidance in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) which advises that roof extensions should not dominate the existing roof. It would also be contrary to the provisions in the Framework paragraph 215 relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The appellant has mentioned the current poor condition of the property and the proposed improvements to its energy performance. It has not been demonstrated that the appeal proposal is the only means by which to address this issue, or that an improvement in the condition of the property would positively affect the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, I give this very limited weight, and it does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is dismissed.