Appeal 6000549

The appeal is dismissed.

It was intended that the site visit would be undertaken on an access required basis, but no one answered the door at the property when I attended. However, the rear of the property and the neighbouring dwellings could clearly be seen from [name]. I am satisfied that I can determine this appeal based upon the unaccompanied site visit which was undertaken.

The Council’s reason for refusal references the Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19). The Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP) was formally adopted on 7 October 2025 and therefore I have determined the appeal in accordance with it.

The appeal proposals include the installation of rooflights to the front which do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. The Council’s officer report does not identify any conflict with development plan policy in these respects. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer windows on the character and appearance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The appeal site lies in an area characterised by tight knit, two-storey brick houses in short terraces with slate roofs. All the buildings which line the street are non-designated Buildings of [name] (BTM). This recognises their strong uniformity and largely unaltered appearance. This coherent character makes a positive contribution to the architectural and historic significance of the St Matthias Richmond Conservation Area (CA).

The rear of the terraces presents a less uniform appearance due to some rear extensions. However, the unaltered roofscape is a distinctive and important characteristic of the terraces when viewed from [name] and between the properties on [address]. Even in these oblique views, the introduction of dormers would disrupt the unaltered and highly unified roofscape of the terrace. This would harmfully erode the local distinctiveness of the BTM’s and their contribution to the significance of the CA.

I saw other examples of dormers in the area, most notably on [address]. However, I also saw that these properties lacked the same degree of uniformity of [address] and are not comparable. The only other dormer on [address] is on the opposite side of the road and the appellant acknowledges that this is likely to have been constructed some time ago.

I understand that the proposal incorporates revisions following pre-application advice. Even if the proposal complies with the general guidelines set out in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, this does not mitigate the harm I have found to the designated and non-designated

The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies 28 and 30 of the LP which require high quality design that respects local character and preserves the significance and character of non-designated heritage assets. In reaching this view, I have had regard to Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Given its scale, the proposal would cause less than substantial, but nonetheless moderate harm to the designated heritage asset. Policy 29 of the LP and Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits.

The existing unit 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 undertake repairs and improve the energy efficiency 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, the limited public benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm that would arise from the proposal. The appeal proposal would conflict with Policy 29 of the LP which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset. 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.

I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not limited to, outlook and loss of privacy but given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are not matters on which my decision turns.

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.