Appeal 6002645

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the original decision the Council has formally adopted its new Richmond Local Plan (2024-2039) (LP) to replace its former Local Plan. All references to the former Local Plan found in the officer report and decision notice can therefore be discounted.

The appeal property falls within the boundary of the [address] St Margarets Conservation Area (CA).

A previous planning permission1 was granted for what the appellant describes as an identical development to that initially proposed in her latest application. The officer report on the current proposal describes the previously permitted proposal as a near identical scheme, but treated the previous planning permission as expired.

The Council’s revised description of the proposal lists the additions and modifications the appellant seeks to make to the property. During the course of the determination discussions between the principal parties took place and amended plans were submitted, but the extent of the amendments did not match the Council’s aspirations or expectations. 1 Ref 18/0029/FUL dated 10 November 2023

The main issue is whether the proposed development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

[address] is a comparatively modern development comprised of a terrace of red-bricked properties which strikes [site address] at right angles. It is divided into 6 units, some of which are used as offices, whilst others are dwellings. The lane serving the units appears to be private and was used for parking when I visited. The narrow elevation facing [site address] displays what is described by the Council as a Dutch gable. This echoes the appearance of some older buildings in St

Units 1-3, those closest to [site address] , display mansard roofs of a standard angular appearance, as does unit 6, the latter being granted on appeal2. The Council has no objection in principle to the erection of a mansard, but expresses concern with the proposed design. In effect, the Council considers the design should match the profile of those erected on units 1-3, with particular regard to the rear elevation. The appellant’s proposal is not considered a true mansard in that it contains a vertical element. It also springs off a parapet and contains a window, which distinguishes it significantly from the design of the extant mansards.

Although the appellant suggests otherwise, the mansard roof at the rear would be clearly apparent from [site address] , alongside the other mansards. In view of its sharply contrasting design, which would be at odds with the unified design of the mansards atop Units 1-3, it would appear incongruous, causing visual harm. I note the appellant’s reasons for adopting the proposed design, and her objective of reverting the use from offices to residential, but it seems to me that achieving an acceptable design in this heritage context whilst maintaining a viable internal layout should not prove to be unattainable.

Turning to the front main elevation, whilst at first glance the elevation as a whole may give the impression of a uniform appearance, the individual units display subtle differences. For example, unit 1, unlike the others, contains no front door in this elevation, whilst unit 6’s front door is placed differently to those on units 2-5. The appellant’s proposal to slightly relocate the front door would virtually replicate the positions of the front doors on units 2 & 3. The proposed introduction of a small window on the first floor would replicate the pattern seen at unit 3. The introduction of glazing panels in the front door would replicate that seen at unit 3. To my mind, the proposed modifications could take place without harming the elevation’s overall appearance or its overall perception within the CA.

The harm I have found relates to one element of the scheme, and I find the harm to the heritage asset to be less than substantial. However, I am not aware of any public benefits arising from the proposal. On balance, and notwithstanding my view on the proposals affecting the front elevation, the appeal should not succeed, not least since the flawed design appears to be capable of rectification, albeit with implications for the internal layout. 2 [name]/L5810/A/14/2212647, dated 8 April 2014

I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the CA contrary to the provisions of LP policy 29 requiring development proposals to conserve the Borough’s historic environment.

I have considered the views of local residents, but having regard to the outcome of the appeal I need not consider these matters further, particularly having regard to the Council’s comments on them. I have also taken account of the planning history, which attracts some weight. However, since the previous decision the Council has adopted a new development plan, and the representations point to a more significant conservation input into the consideration of the current proposal on the Council’s part.

No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.

The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.