Appeal 6001984

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a glass first floor, link infill extension at [site address] , Barnes, Richmond upon Thames, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/2584, subject to the following conditions:

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 nos 007/105-SK01, 007/118-E01, 007/118-E02, 007/124-P02, 007/124-P11.

The rooflights shall be black framed, conservation type with a central vertical bar and sit flush with the roofline.

The development must be carried out in accordance with a [name] of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and retained as such thereafter.

Since the original permission was granted, the Council have adopted the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) (LP). In these circumstances, I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decision. The appeal has therefore been determined in accordance with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the LP.

There was a previous appeal decision1 (the previous appeal) which in accordance with case law is a material consideration as it is necessary to have consistency in decision making. This appeal case differs from the previous appeal in that the proposal would be frameless glazing instead of brick construction. 1 APP/L5810/D/25/3369283

Because the appeal site lies in the Castelnau Conservation Area (CA), I have had special regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCAA).

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host buildings and their significance as non-designated heritage assets and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Castelnau Conservation Area (CA) within which the site lies.

The appeal site is a large Victorian villa with associated two storey coach house that is set to the side of the main house. The house has been subject to various alterations which includes a linked extension to the front of the coach house, connecting it to the main house at ground floor level. The main house and the coach house are identified separately by the Council as Buildings of [name] and therefore are Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA).

The appeal site is located to the southern end of Castelnau, a road which was created in the early 19th century to connect Barnes Village with the new [name]. The CA includes the Castelnau villas, the villas of [address] and the linked village centre. Its significance is both historical and architectural derived from the continuous groups of 19th century dwellings along Castelnau in a setting of fine trees. The southern part of the Conservation Area, where the appeal site is located, mainly comprises large Victorian and Edwardian villas, most of which are detached and sit back from the road. Many have steep, slate‐tiled roofs and gabled features that can be seen through the trees. Although the houses vary in style, they share similar building materials and architectural details, which gives the area a cohesive appearance.

The submitted evidence shows that the appeal site is one of the few dwellings along this part of Castelnau with a detached villa and separate coach house. Therefore, despite previous alterations the appeal site retains its traditional layout and appearance as two buildings, and thereby make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the effect of development proposals on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Policy 30 of the LP states that the Council will seek to preserve, and where possible enhance, the significance, character and setting of non-designated heritage assets.

The proposed development would occupy the existing space between the main dwelling and the coach house. [name] have not been provided with detailed sectional drawings illustrating the construction or the method of attachment, the submitted plans show that the link would be frameless. While the link would represent a modern addition, its simple and lightweight composition would sit comfortably alongside the established architectural features and materials without diminishing the original form of the buildings. The use of a frameless glass structure would provide transparency through towards the rear landscaping, thereby maintaining the legibility of the coach house as an ancillary building that was historically separate from the principal dwelling.

Although the height of the link would sit above the eaves height of the coach house, the recessed positioning and use of glazing would preserve the prominence of its strong gable roof. Consequently, the historic functions, architectural character and spatial relationship of both buildings would be maintained. It would thereby preserve the significance of the buildings as non-designated heritage assets and the positive contribution they make to the character and appearance of the CA.

The glazed link would be visible at street level in direct views of the site and from neighbouring dwellings, however, there would be limited public views from further along the road. As the link would be set back from the front elevation of the coach house and owing to its glazed material, it would not be unduly prominent and therefore would preserve the traditional, cohesive appearance of the CA.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host buildings, nor their significance as NDHAs and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. It therefore complies with paragraph 216 of the Framework, would satisfy the requirements of the LBCAA and would not conflict with Policies 28, 29 and 30 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025). Together, these policies amongst other things seek to ensure that new development takes opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings, conserves and where possible makes a positive contribution to the historic environment and seeks to preserve the significance, character and setting of non-designated heritage assets.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions and where appropriate amended the wording to more closely align with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have also removed tailpieces to conditions that circumvent the statutory route to vary conditions or deprive interested parties of the opportunity to comment.

In order to meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement (1). I have imposed a condition relating to approved plans for the avoidance of doubt (2). In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the CA a condition is required with regards to black framed conservation type rooflights (3). A condition is required in relation to a fire safety statement (4) in order to ensure the safety of residents.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be allowed.