Single side storey infill extension and a mansard roof with dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2017 by L Gibbons BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3184382 74 Archway Street, Barnes, London SW13 0AW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Gordon Brodie against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 16/4778/HOT, dated 13 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 23 June 2017.  The development proposed is a single side storey infill extension and a mansard roof with dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. For the sake of clarity I have used the description of development as set out on the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice. 3. The parties refer to Policies LP 1, LP 3 and LP 8 of the Publication Local Plan. Given the stage that it has reached in the process, I give it little weight. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Thorne Passage Mortlake Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is located within the Thorne Passage Mortlake Conservation Area. The part of the Conservation Area in which the site is located consists mainly of terraces of houses. The Council’s Conservation Area Study 2007 (CAS) refers to features such as rendered walls, original doors and windows together with slate roofs and substantial chimney stacks. Individual properties do have some alterations to the colour of render and window styles. However, the roofline of the properties is generally consistent and largely intact particularly on the front elevations. Only a few exceptions of what appear to be mainly older style properties break up the obvious rhythm of the roofscape with either higher rooflines or flat roofs. This includes No 101 Archway Street which is close to the appeal site. The area’s special interest is both architectural relating to the design of houses, and historic in terms of the development of the houses in relation to the railway. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3184382 2 6. I note that the house is not identified as having significant historical features nor is it a Building of Townscape Merit. The appellant refers to the building having low significance as a heritage asset. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the design of the majority of the terraced houses within the street and the Conservation Area. 7. The proposal includes a single storey infill extension to the side; the Council does not raise any objections in this regard and I see no reason to disagree with this matter. However, the proposal would involve alterations to the roof in the form of a mansard roof and dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes. I have been referred to the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2015. This sets out at page 11 that roof extensions should not dominate the original roof. 8. Mansard roofs are not a feature of Archway Street, and dormer windows can only be found on the rear roof slopes. Although of a similar scale to other windows on the lower floors, the dormer windows would be large and bulky in relation to the unaltered roofscape. This would draw the eye towards the appeal scheme. The ridgeline would also become slightly raised above that of the adjoining properties further disrupting the rhythm of the simple roofscape of the terrace to a significant degree. This would be the case even with No 74 being located towards the end of a row of houses. 9. I acknowledge that the CAS does not specifically refer to alterations to roofs being a pressure for the Conservation Area at the time it was produced. Nevertheless, the proposal would alter the original roof and introduce dormer windows to the front elevation which would be completely out of character with the appearance of the significant majority of roofs in the area. It would be out of context in terms of the wider Conservation Area. 10. I accept that the scheme has been designed to provide additional accommodation to meet needs of existing and future occupiers. I note that some regeneration has taken place in the area including some newer houses. The proposal would not cause harm to adjoining occupiers in respect of loss of privacy or of light. However, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the proposed development. 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the appearance of the Thorne Passage Mortlake Conservation Area. It would be in conflict with Policy CP7 of the Richmond upon Thames Core Strategy 2009 and Policies DM HD 1, DM DC 1 and DM DC 5 of the Development Management Plan 2011. These amongst other things seek new development that recognises and respects distinctive local character, including the nature of a particular road, and that in respect of Conservation Areas should conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to the SPD. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L Gibbons INSPECTOR