Appeal 6004701

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The main issue relevant to this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the CA.

[address] No. 36 Conservation Area (CA) Study identifies that the special interest of the CA derives in part from terraces of attractive residential development of varied types and architectural styles, occupying the spaces between the two principal road frontages. Old, narrow alleys lead off the main roads, and the area is densely developed.

This dense urban fabric incorporates a mix of grand Georgian terraces, large detached and semi-detached townhouses, and small Victorian artisans’ cottages. The diversity of building types and scales contributes significantly to the character and interest of the CA.

Side roads are predominantly characterised by two-storey terraced or semi-detached houses with shallow-pitched slate roofs, which are generally unencumbered by roof extensions. Yellow stock brick is the prevailing material, often complemented by red brick detailing, which establishes a consistent and recognisable material palette.

While development along [address] differs to some extent from other parts of the CA, it retains a number of consistent features. These include flat-fronted elevations and the use of stock brick with red brick string courses, decorative detailing and headers.

Original windows and chimney stacks are also identified as significant elements. Collectively, these features make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and underpin the overall significance of the CA.

The appeal property comprises a single-storey building characterised by rounded windows and a rounded door to the front elevation. It is constructed of yellow stock brick and is finished with a tiled side-gabled roof. The appeal site also contains a single-storey, flat-roofed garage with a large metal door fronting [address], with the main appeal building set back slightly from the garage frontage.

As a single-storey building, the appeal property is somewhat unusual within [address] and the wider CA. However, along [address] there is a mix of two-, three- and four-storey properties, such that the scale of development varies.

The materials used in the construction of the appeal building are consistent with those found elsewhere in the CA and contribute positively to its character. Properties along the road are typically set back behind narrow brick-walled front gardens or open basements, whereas the appeal site has an open frontage. While this differs from the prevailing pattern, there is some variation in setback distances along the street.

Detailing to windows and doors varies, but some form of architectural detailing is a common and unifying feature of the housing in the road. Although the rounded windows and door are unusual, they do incorporate surrounding detailing, contributing to this unifying characteristic. The flat fronted nature of the building also reflects a consistent feature of the area.

By contrast, the single-storey flat-roofed garage is uncommon within the street scene and the wider CA, and its materials are not characteristic of those typically used. Consequently, the garage does not incorporate features that contribute positively to the significance of the CA and thus does not preserve the character or appearance of it.

Notwithstanding its smaller scale and open frontage, the appeal building itself incorporates features that contribute positively to the significance of the CA and therefore preserves its character and appearance.

The proposed development would take the form of a two-storey building with a split-level roof. This would comprise a slate-finished gabled roof, incorporating parapet walls to either side over part of the structure, with a flat roof over the remaining section.

The building would present a varied frontage, with approximately half of the dwelling projecting significantly forward of the remainder. Whilst there are examples of side extensions and additions to properties in the area, these are typically modest in scale and clearly subordinate to the host building, as seen at [address]. In this case, the two sections of the extended dwelling would be of broadly equal width, such that neither would appear subservient to the other. The generally consistent building line and flat-fronted nature of properties are important contributors to the character of the area, and the proposed design would conflict with these established characteristics, further distinguishing the development from the prevailing pattern within the CA.

Stucco quoins are proposed and whilst these are a feature of a group of semi-detached properties on [address], they are typically employed to demarcate the junction between separate buildings. The design and placement of the quoins and the setback between the two sides of the house would give rise to the appearance of two distinct buildings rather than a single cohesive dwelling, an effect that is compounded by the contrasting roof forms.

The proposed windows would incorporate decorative surrounds that reflect those found on nearby properties. Although a Juliet balcony is proposed, balconies are present on the frontage of the building opposite. Given its modest proportions and the use of open metal railings, the Juliet balcony would not appear incongruous within the street scene.

The flat-roofed side of the house would incorporate large, perforated doors, together with a zinc canopy above, intended to provide a covered refuse storage area. Both the doors and canopy would project a notable distance beyond the front elevation. Additionally, whilst canopies are a common feature above shopfronts on [address], these are clearly associated with commercial premises, whereas the appeal proposal is distinctly residential in character. As such, the design of the refuse store and canopy would fail to preserve the simple, flat-fronted elevations that typify residential properties along [address] and elsewhere within the CA.

Whilst buildings of architectural merit at [address] do not feature Juliet balconies, the appeal site is separated from these by [address], a single-storey property. Given this separation, and the differences in architectural approach, it is evident that the proposal does not seek to directly replicate these buildings. However, the side elevation door, positioned beneath a first-floor ledge, would represent an unusual feature within the context of the wider street. The form, extent and detailing of the glazing associated with this entrance would not reflect the character of covered entrances elsewhere in the locality. These elements would further distinguish the dwelling from others along the road and within the CA. Front elevations in the area are generally simple in composition, typically comprising a recessed front door and larger windows with decorative surrounds. By contrast, the design and arrangement of features in this part of the proposal would result in an unduly busy frontage, appearing discordant with the prevailing character of surrounding development. Moreover, the absence of chimneys within the design further emphasises the overall lack of consistency and architectural coherence.

The surrounding development is predominantly terraced or arranged in closely spaced pairs of semi-detached dwellings. Consequently, gaps within the street scene are uncommon and do not form a defining feature. Although the existing appeal site, together with the adjoining single-storey building and garages, creates a gap above ground floor level between development on [address] and the larger buildings along this part of [address], this openness does not necessarily contribute towards the significance of the CA. In particular, the character of [address] is defined by the relatively close spacing and larger scale of its buildings. Therefore, the infilling of this gap at first-floor level would not, in itself, result in harm to the character or appearance of [address] or the wider CA.

The scheme would require the demolition of the flat roofed garage next to the host dwelling and as such it would involve the removal a building that does not preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The sheds located to the rear of the appeal property are limited in scale and domestic in appearance and are screened by the dwelling. Taking these factors into account their demolition would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the CA.

In summary, the proposal incorporates certain elements that reflect the character and appearance of other properties within the CA, including the use of materials and decorative detailing to some window surrounds. In addition, given the variation in building scale and alignment along [address], the two-storey scale of the proposal would not appear inherently out of character. However, the relationship between the two constituent parts of the building would appear awkward, and when combined with the inclusion of features such as the projecting zinc canopy over the refuse store and the differing roof form, the overall design appears disjointed and lacks architectural coherence. This lack of coherence is particularly evident at ground floor level on the flat-roofed element.

Furthermore, whilst the existing site does not feature a frontage brick wall, none is proposed as part of the development. This omission would further differentiate the proposal from the prevailing character of the street, notwithstanding the inclusion of a low wall between the appeal site and the neighbouring garage. Consequently, the proposed development would include features that cause harm to the significance of the CA as a whole and whilst the removal of the flat roofed garage would remove a building that does not preserve the character and appearance of the CA, the extended dwelling as proposed would fail to preserve the significance of it.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that, when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to say that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset from development should require clear and convincing justification.

In this case, the proposal relates to an extension to a single dwelling within the CA. The harm identified would be less than substantial in Framework terms and in this context, I give great weight to the harm I have identified. Having regard to the statutory duty under the Act, considerable importance and weight must be attached to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In these circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would result in the demolition of the existing garage, which does not preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Its removal would therefore represent only a modest benefit. However, the existing dwelling on the site preserves the character and appearance of the CA, and its loss would not constitute a public benefit. Furthermore, its replacement with a building that fails to preserve the character or appearance of the CA would weigh against the proposal.

The extended dwelling would screen views of the large ventilation system for a restaurant that operates on [address]. The utilitarian appearance of this ventilation system is uncommon within the area and the screening of this would provide a limited public benefit to the character and appearance of the CA.

There would be short term and long-term economic benefits that would arise from the construction of the scheme. The appellant would also contribute towards the social aspect of the area, and the scheme would deliver a wheelchair accessible home. The proposal would also provide soft landscaping around the property.

The scale of development across the wider CA varies considerably and views of taller properties from side roads is not uncommon. Consequently, the screening the proposed two storey property would provide of [address] would not be a benefit to the character or appearance of the CA.

The proposal would also allow for the appellant to live in the property that would be designed to support them, but this would be a private benefit of the scheme and is considered in greater detail later in this decision.

Taking all matters into account, the modest public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh that harm to the heritage asset. Consequently, clear and convincing justification has not been provided to justify the harm to the significance of the

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA, and I give this harm considerable importance and weight in the planning balance. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies 28 and 29 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan. These seek, amongst other matters, for development to conserve and where possible take opportunities to make a positive contribution to, the historic environment of the borough.

Whilst the Council could have sought amendments during the determination of the application, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. I have thus had regard to the merits of the scheme before me. The process is confined to determining the proposal as submitted, not iterating alternative schemes. Where the harm is inherent to the proposal’s overall design approach rather than a discrete element, neither conditions nor the appeal process provides an appropriate mechanism to resolve it.

I have found that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. This would lead to a conflict with relevant development plan policies. While there are other policies with which the proposal would comply, the objectives of the development plan must be read as a whole and the conflicts I have identified result in a conflict with the development plan when it is considered as a whole.

The scheme would lead to economic, social and environmental benefits to which I attach modest weight in favour of the development. However, I consider these benefits would be outweighed by the adverse impacts. As a result, no material considerations have been shown to carry sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan and this signifies that the appeal should be dismissed.

The extended dwelling would provide accommodation for the appellant, who has additional care needs arising from a health condition. As such, the appellant is a person with a protected characteristic (disability) for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires decision-makers to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. I have had these matters in mind throughout my assessment.

The evidence indicates that the appellant uses a wheelchair and requires accommodation specifically designed to meet their needs, including provision for a live-in carer. The proposal would extend the dwelling to meet those requirements and would therefore contribute positively towards addressing the appellant’s needs.

I attach significant weight to these considerations. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the appellant’s needs could not reasonably be met through alternative means, including through a differently designed scheme that would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. In particular, many of the identified concerns relate to the external design of the building, rather than the internal layout required to meet accessibility needs. As such, it has not been shown that the specific form of development proposed is the only means of achieving those objectives.

I have also considered the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular Article 8 and Article 1 of the [name]. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s interests in respect of their home and private life. However, these are qualified rights, and any interference must be weighed against the public interest.

In this case, the interference would be lawful and in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the preservation of the character and appearance of the CA. Given that the appellant’s needs could potentially be met in a less harmful manner, I am satisfied that the decision to dismiss the appeal would be proportionate. There will be no violation of the individual or their family’s human rights. The protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with their rights.

Accordingly, having had due regard to the PSED, I conclude that the identified harm is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, including those arising from meeting the appellant’s needs.

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