Appeal 6000675

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension, at [site address] , Barnes, [name], London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application PA25/2053, subject to the conditions set out below.

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: L01, PFE01 [name], PFE02 [name], PFE03 [name], PFE04 [name], PFE05 [name], PFE06 [name], PFE07 [name], PFP01 [name], PFP02 [name], PFP03 [name], PFP04 [name], PFP05 [name], PFP06 [name] & PFP07 [name].

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.

The Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039, which was in draft at the time the Council refused planning permission, was formally adopted on 7 October 2025. This replaces the Richmond Local Plan (2018), such that the policies of that plan cited on the decision notice are no longer part of the development plan and have no weight. I have therefore determined the appeal having regard to the relevant policies within the Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan).

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling with particular regard to its status as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA), No. [site address] , and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barnes Green Conservation Area (CA). • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of the adjacent listed building, No. [address].

The appeal property comprises a two-storey brick-built dwelling with a hipped roof. It incorporates a two-storey side extension with a flat roof set at eaves level, positioned between the main dwelling and the adjacent [name] listed building (No. [address]).

The appeal property is identified as a NDHA due to its sympathetic and complementary design and its location flanked by other heritage assets. The appeal site also lies within the CA, the significance of which is noted by the character of four distinct areas. The appeal property is situated in ‘[address]’ area, running parallel to the Thames and containing numerous 18 th and 19th century buildings of architectural quality, many of which are listed or recognised as NDHA’s.

The proposed first floor extension would be located to the rear, use matching materials and would have a hipped roof, harmonising with the character of the host dwelling. I acknowledge that some part of the rear extension would be a fraction less than one metre away from the shared boundary and therefore would technically contradict guidance in the [name] and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD). However, the SPD relates to the traditional arrangement of boundaries which would ordinarily see a consistent gap between properties. The subject appeal is different in that the boundary overlaps and is irregular and therefore I find that the SPD is of limited assistance in this instance. Furthermore, there would be clear physical and visual separation between No 30 and the appeal property to the rear at first floor level and the hipped element of the roof would match the architectural style of the area.

Due to the physical relationship between Nos 29 and 30 the physical boundary is ambiguous. The properties are conjoined at ground floor level and from the front elevation, the existing two-storey flat-roofed side extension appears as a distinct addition to No. 29, contrasting in material and style with No. 30. The proposed hipped roof to the rear would be barely perceptible from the street. Where it is perceived, it would unify the elevation by reducing the visual discord, while preserving the clear separation between the two buildings.

Having regard to the statutory duty as set out in section 72 of the Act1 I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. For the reasons given above the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and would thereby preserve the NDHA, and preserve the character or appearance of the CA. It would comply with the requirements of the Local Plan Policies 28, 29 and 30 insofar as they seek high quality development that: respects the local 1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. character and appearance; preserves NDHA’s; and ensures that developments conserve or enhance conservation areas and their significance.

The proposal would comply with the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) Chapter 16, insofar as it seeks high quality design that conserves and enhances the historic environment. The proposal would comply with the Barnes Green Study Conservation Area No.1 and the Barnes Green Conservation Area 1 statement insofar as they seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The appeal site is located directly adjacent to the [name] listed No [address], whose significance is noted as being a circa 18th century, two-storey brick house, three windows wide with parapet and stone terminal orbs. A cast-iron balcony to the first floor with supports to ground level. A one window wide, set-back section on the left, approached by a single storey front extension having an entrance door opening onto the pavement with an ornamental fanlight over.

The appeal building and No [address], along with other buildings, derive significance from their value as a group in their collective riverfront setting, forming part of the area known as ‘[address]’. This element of their setting and the linear views of the properties together, makes a valuable contribution to the significance of these buildings. I have explained above why the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the front elevation of the properties.

The rear of the properties plays a less significant role. Nonetheless, the rear elevation offers visual clues about the history and evolution of the listed building. This can be seen and appreciated within the wider setting of the rear of the buildings, and from the appeal site, such that the site contributes positively to the setting of the listed building. From this viewpoint, the introduction of the modest first floor extension would not upset the relatively limited architectural coherence of the rear elevations, and it would be clear to see the demarcation of the separate buildings. The proposal would retain a clear separation to the rear, use matching materials and form, and would be characteristic of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

Having regard to the statutory duty as set out in section 66(1) of the Act2 in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposed development would not cause harm to the setting of the listed building either to the front or to the rear and would thereby preserve its significance. The proposal would comply with Policies 28 and 29 of the Local Plan in terms of ensuring that developments conserve or enhance the significance of listed buildings and their settings. The proposal would also comply with the requirement of the Framework that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, and that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, including their setting. 2 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The occupier of No. 30 has expressed concern regarding the potential adverse effect of the proposal on their living conditions, noting that the listed status of their property restricts their ability to implement alterations to mitigate any such impact. The Council concluded that the scheme would not result in an unacceptable effect on neighbouring living conditions and that it accords with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to conclude otherwise.

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty and precision, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord.

It would be unnecessary to impose a condition for materials, given approved plans detail the materials would match the existing and that rooflights are flush in profile.

I find that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling, preserve the character or appearance of the CA and conserve the setting of the listed building and therefore no harm would be caused.

The proposed development would therefore comply with the development plan and there are no identified other considerations, including the Framework, which outweigh this. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.