Appeal 6000732

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s second reason for refusal relates to insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with Policy D12 of the London Plan in respect of achieving the highest standards of fire safety. The appellant has sought to address this through the submission of a [name] as part of its appeal statement of case.

Given my conclusion in respect of the first main issue, there is no need for me to consider this matter further, since it would not alter the outcome of this appeal. As such, I have not asked the Council to respond to the submitted [name].

Since the determination of the application the subject of this appeal, the Council has adopted the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan ‘the best for our borough’ 2024 to 2039 (7 October 2025) (the Local Plan). This supersedes the previous London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (July 2018), so that the ‘publication Local Plan policies’ referred to in the council’s first reason for refusal have now become the adopted local plan policies. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment upon any implications this may have for the determination of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (KGCA).

The appeal site occupies a corner position at the junction of [address] and [address], within an established residential area within the KGCA. It is occupied by a two-storey semi-detached dwelling which has a part pitched and part hipped roof and faces onto [address], with a long rear garden which extends along [address].

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that with respect to development affecting buildings or other land in a conservation area, ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’

The suburban residential area within which the appeal site lies, grew up from former fields and market gardens following the opening of [address] railway station in the late 19th century. The KGCA is centred on this listed railway station building which provides the gateway to the area and the nearby [address].

The appeal site lies within a later expansion of the residential suburb where properties date back to the early 20th century. The area is characterised by residential streets made up of attractive substantial two-storey detached, semi-detached and terraced houses, some of which have accommodation within the roof. There is a strongly linear layout of built development, with rows of houses of similar scale and height, having consistent front and rear building lines and being set within long rectangular-shaped plots arranged perpendicularly in relation to the road.

There is also a notable sense of unity to the housing because of a prevailing use of red or yellow stock brick and timber sliding sash windows, together with a variety of attractive design detailing such as decorative barge boards, terracotta panels, bay windows and porches. There is also a distinctive roofscape comprising prominent gables with finials and ornamental ridge tiles, corbels, turrets and brick chimney stacks.

Generous rear gardens provide space between the rows of properties resulting in a spacious, low-density environment where garden planting and street trees contribute to a pleasant suburban character. Garages and outbuildings within the rear gardens tend to be single storey having a low visual impact upon the street scene and maintaining a sense of space between the rows of dwellings. All the above contribute to the special qualities of this conservation area, resulting in a cohesive and harmonious high-quality townscape.

The appeal site is typical of such development, being occupied by an attractive inter-war period semi-detached dwelling with two-storey plus attic living accommodation. The building has a rough cast render and brick walls incorporating half timbering and feature bay windows. The tiled hipped roof incorporates a front-facing gable which is a prevailing building feature along this part of the road, as well as decorative elements including roof edging tiles and brick chimneys incorporating multiple chimney pots.

The building forms an integral part of a row of similarly positioned semi-detached properties which share a consistent front and rear building line and are typical of the aforesaid prevailing layout of built development and gardens. Its rear garden forms part of a verdant and spacious gap between these properties and the row of properties facing onto [address].

As such the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the significance, character and appearance of the KGCA having regard to the age and use of the property, the siting and design of the existing dwelling in relation to surrounding built development design and the size and position of its rear garden.

Moreover, I concur with the view of the appeal inspector in dismissing an appeal1 in respect of development at the corner of [address] and [address], that the open garden areas between the rows of dwellings are of equal significance in that they complement the built form by promoting a verdant and low-density townscape.

The appeal property occupies a prominent corner position where its long rear garden is apparent from the public realm of the street. The garden enables the large gap between the row of houses fronting [address] and the group of houses to the rear of the site facing [address], which are positioned at right-angles to it, to be fully appreciated from the public realm. The latter comprise a distinct group of dwellings sharing the aforesaid harmonious scale, height, design and layout characteristics which are a defining feature of this part of the KGCA.

I acknowledge that there has long been a garage at the rear of the appeal site. Based on the evidence before me, including the ‘existing plans and elevations’ drawing ref 251A submitted with the planning application, this comprised a flat roofed double garage building sited adjacent to No.114. As such, it had a low-key presence within the street scene.

The garage has recently been replaced with a single storey outbuilding. Whilst having a footprint like that of the appeal scheme, I saw during my site inspection that the existing building is largely screened by the frontage timber fencing and is not visually prominent in views from the road.

The appeal scheme would introduce a notably larger structure onto the appeal site due to the proposed double hipped roof with front facing gable end. This would rise to a height of approximately 4.5m above ground level with an eave’s height of approximately 2.5m. As such, the structure would be visually prominent in views from the street.

Moreover, notwithstanding the proposed ancillary nature of the building, the proposed front elevation would have the appearance of comprising a single storey dwelling because of its roof form, front gable, large front window and front entrance door.

The result would be a perceived significant reduction in the existing spacious gap between the housing within the two roads, and this would undermine the well-established harmonious and spacious layout of development which characterises this part of the KGCA.

The new building would appear incongruous within the townscape of [address]. As a single storey building having the appearance of a bungalow, it would not be visually connected with either of the two storey houses to its sides. Moreover, the discordant nature of the proposal within the [address] street scene would be compounded by its distance from the rear of the host property combined with its proximity to the side wall of No.9 and its position considerably closer to the site frontage than that property and its neighbours further west. 1 APP/L5810/A/09/2098105

This would result in the appeal scheme appearing less as an ancillary building to the host property and more as an alien single storey addition to the existing group of complementarily designed two-storey houses fronting this side of [address]. The new building would sit awkwardly in relation to the adjacent house, being discordant in respect of its lower height and squatter form in comparison to that property and its differing front fenestration design and lack of architectural detailing characteristic of the neighbouring row of properties.

As a result, the proposal would significantly undermine the established rhythm of street-facing dwellings on this side of the road, both having regard to its anomalous design and position in front of the well-established strong front building line. This would be to the detriment of part of the existing urban grain which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the KGCA.

With all the above in mind, due to its height, scale, design and position on the site, the proposed replacement outbuilding would assume an unduly visually prominent appearance in relation to, and relate poorly to, neighbouring built development. It would undermine the spacious, verdant and harmonious layout of built development which is a key positive feature of this part of the KGCA. As such, it would have a negative effect upon the significance of the heritage asset.

I have taken account of the ‘fall-back position’ of several different designs of outbuildings that could lawfully be built in the position of the appeal proposal. These approved structures benefit from lawful development certificates (LDC). As such, character and appearance were not matters for determination in these applications.

Notwithstanding this, the first LDC approval2 related to a shallow pitched roof structure, the second approval3 was in respect of a flat-roofed timber structure, and the third4 related to a flat-roofed brick walled outbuilding. I find that, largely because of their lower and less bulky roof forms and their outward appearance being less akin to that of a separate dwelling, that none of the outbuildings which could be lawfully built on the appeal site would undermine the character and appearance of the area in the manner of the appeal scheme. As such, the fallback positions do not justify allowing the proposal before me.

The appellant has put forward an alternative fall-back scheme for an outbuilding which it states could be built under Permitted Development. It is not for me, under this S78 appeal to determine whether this alternative scheme comprises Permitted Development. Notwithstanding this, having regard to its low height and slightly sloping roof form, I find that the impacts of this alternative scheme upon the character and appearance of the conservation area would be like those of the approved LDC schemes. As such, it does not alter my views on the appeal scheme.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a detached single storey building rear of [address] and directly opposite the appeal site. The information before me is that this comprises a one-bedroom dwelling formed from the extension to, and conversion of, a former garden studio5. 2 [name] 15/0415/PS192 3 [name] 15/1633/PS192 4 [name] 24/3071/PS192 5 [name] 05/2062/FUL

I saw on my site visit that this building sits within the context of a different townscape on the opposite side of the road, whereby the building is sited within a heavily landscaped plot and is viewed in conjunction with two large, detached houses on that side of the road, from whose design quality and detailing the small dwelling takes its cues.

I find that when viewed from the public realm, that building has the appearance of comprising an ancillary building to the neighbouring house at [address]. As such, it is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme and the circumstances of the appeal site and its immediate neighbours. Accordingly, its presence so close to the appeal site does not alter my conclusions in respect of the appeal scheme.

The statutory duty in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In terms of the advice in paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), the harm to the KGCA would be to the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ given the relatively modest scale of the scheme which relates to a domestic outbuilding within the wider conservation area.

Consequently, the Framework sets out the need to address the ‘less than substantial harm’ in a balanced manner against the public benefits associated with the proposal. In doing so, however, paragraph 212 of the Framework sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation irrespective of whether potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. In this instance, no public benefits have been put forward in respect of the development to weigh against this less than substantial harm.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the KGCA. It would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policies 15, 28 and 29. Collectively and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that new developments, including infill outbuildings, are of a high architectural and urban design quality that responds positively to local character, and that they conserve and, where possible, make a positive contribution to the historic environment of the borough.

For similar reasons, the proposal would also be contrary to Chapter 16 of the Framework in respect of the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.