Appeal 6002867

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by BHPD Limited against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area and as such I have had regard to the duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The main issue relevant to the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the [address] Conservation Area (CA)

The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling featuring a hipped red clay tiled roof, chimney stacks, rendered first-floor elevations, and hanging tiles to the two-storey bay. Owing to its position, the steep gradient of the road, and the neighbouring bungalow, the flank elevation of the house is generally unobstructed when approaching [address] from [address] West. With the exception of the neighbouring bungalow, surrounding dwellings share a similar architectural form. Properties are modest in scale and are set apart to allow visible gaps at first-floor level, contributing to the leafy, verdant character of the street scene.

The Council’s Conservation Area Statement (CAS) identifies the locality as a well-planned 1920s residential estate characterised by consistent architectural styles, materials, and landscaped verges. The CAS highlights the importance of maintaining this balance and avoiding unsympathetic alterations that erode traditional features and materials. The dwellings are modest in scale and are sited so that gaps exist between dwellings. The consistency in terms of the design, scale and materials used in the construction of the dwellings and landscaping around the CA are features that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. As the appeal property is consistent in scale and design with other dwellings in the CA, it preserves the area’s character and appearance.

The appeal property has an extensive recent planning history, and the appellant has stated that the development approved under application reference PA24/0852/HOT and then amended under application reference PA25/1532 has been implemented and is now under construction and it was evident at my site visit that an extension was being built. Work did also appear to be underway on the scheme that is before me; however, I have had regard to what is proposed on its own merits.

The consented scheme under construction includes a part first floor rear extension extending almost a deep as the single-storey rear projection but covering half the width of the dwelling, leaving a gap to the bungalow to the north. A separate permission was granted which included a part first floor rear extension on the opposite side, again at half width, leaving a gap to the southern neighbouring dwelling. Consequently, while something similar to the current proposal has previously been approved, that approval did not include the presence of the additional two-storey extension now under construction.

A full-width two-storey rear extension has also been approved at appeal, but it was of a lesser depth than the scheme currently proposed with a different roof form. The first-floor full width rear extension was found to not be disproportionate to the plot and subservient to the host property. The two approvals of the previous half-width first floor extensions were partly justified by the stepped form they created and their inset from the side elevations, both of which helped reduce their perceived scale. I concur with the reasoning of the previous Inspectors concerning those appeals proposals.

Although the extension would not project substantially beyond the rear of [address], the appeal property sits forward of that dwelling, is positioned on rising land, and is next to a bungalow. As a result, the increased depth and flank elevation would be visible from the public realm. Unlike the schemes approved at appeal, only a small inset would be retained to the flank wall of the host dwelling and due to the limited size of the inset it would not be sufficient to notably reduce the perceived scale of the extension. Similarly, the lower ridge height would not be sufficient to overcome the overwhelming impact of the combined extensions, and neither would the use of similar materials. Combined with the extension currently under construction which also extended to the side of the dwelling over two storeys, the resulting massing would be excessive and disproportionate relative to the host dwelling dominating its scale and character. In the context of the proportions of the host building, the proposal, together with the implemented extension, would overwhelm the original dwelling which would not remain legible and fail to respect the prevailing scale and form of buildings in the CA. The consistency of scale and design is an important aspect of the CA’s significance, and the substantial scale of the extended dwelling would appear incongruous. This would harm features that contribute positively to the significance of the CA.

The proposed works would be located to the rear and would not affect the front elevation, which would remain consistent with the appearance of neighbouring frontages. The property’s elevated position, its forward siting relative to neighbouring dwellings, and its proximity to a single-storey bungalow mean that the increased depth and bulk of the enlarged flank elevation would be appreciable when travelling along [address]. The visibility of the massing, even if not continually in view, contributes appreciably to the perception of scale within the CA. It is not necessary for a development to be fully or regularly visible for it to fail to preserve character; the statutory duty applies to the character or appearance of the CA as a whole. In this case, the scale and form resulting from the combined extensions would be perceptible to the public and would disrupt the established pattern and rhythm of development, thereby failing to preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

For the reasons given, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Given that this relates to an extension to a dwelling within the CA, the degree of harm is less than substantial, however, I attach considerable importance and weight to this. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) great weight is to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

The Framework requires that where there would be less than substantial harm that should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The enlarged dwelling would provide the better accommodation for the occupants, although this would be a private benefit, but it would deliver limited short- and long-term economic benefits through construction activity and subsequent occupation of this single extended dwelling. The refurbishment of housing stock also weighs in favour, although this only relates to a single property. For the reasons given above, the scheme would not improve the character or appearance of the rear elevation and as such this is a matter that does not weigh in favour of the proposal. Additionally, as discussed above, there are material differences between the fallback schemes. Furthermore, in each of those cases the approved extensions were smaller than that proposed and taking into consideration the concerns identified above with the scale of what is proposed, the fallback schemes would be less harmful alternatives and therefore carry limited weight as a consideration in the schemes favour in this respect.

The previously approved schemes were each evaluated on the basis of a half width first floor rear addition, whereas the current situation involves the implementation of one such extension alongside the proposal before me to create an almost full width extension. While the roof form of the combined extensions may be less bulky at roof level compared to the approved full width extension, the totality of built form would also be much deeper and thus more impactful on the appreciated scale of the host dwelling. This materially alters the planning context. The cumulative effect of two substantially sized first floor rear extensions, one implemented and one proposed, would create a level of built mass that was not anticipated or found acceptable in any previous appeal decision. The combined bulk and depth would significantly exceed what earlier Inspectors assessed, resulting in an enlarged form that would appear overly dominant and fundamentally alter the scale and proportions of the host dwelling. As such, those earlier decisions do not provide a direct or transferable justification for the present proposal, where the cumulative massing would be materially greater.

Although permission was previously granted for a two-storey rear extension on this side of the dwelling, that fallback can no longer be implemented given that the southern extension is already under construction and both schemes included ground floor additions. There were joint appeals at the appeal site, one of which was dismissed and followed the refusal of a Lawful Development Certificate to concurrently implement the two-half width first floor rear extensions that were approved. The Inspector in that case came to a similar conclusion that the two schemes could not be implemented concurrently. As such, there is not a greater than theoretical possibility that this fallback scheme could take place, nor could the other approval for a full width first floor rear extension for similar reasons.

Whilst full width two storey rear extensions have been built nearby and other dwellings have had their rear elevations altered, the combined effect of the proposal alongside the scheme that has been implemented would create a much larger addition to the house compared to those other properties. Additionally, the Council note that some of those extensions were approved prior to the establishment of the CA, which may indicate why those dwellings are notably larger than the modestly sized dwellings that are typical of the CA.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the identified public benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA. The proposal therefore harms the character and appearance of the area and fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The scheme would therefore conflict with Policies LP1 and LP3 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan, which seek, among other matters, for development to contribute to and enhance local character and to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.