Adjustments to an existing single storey rear extension, a two storey side extension including garage, re-configuration of rear elevation to provide a balanced facade and replacement of glazing to main body of the house with traditionally detailed timber framed double glazed windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 February 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3189273 21 St George’s Road, Twickenham TW1 1QS  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 David Moroney against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 17/3089/FUL, dated 15 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 October 2017.  The development proposed is adjustments to an existing single storey rear extension, a two storey side extension including garage, re-configuration of rear elevation to provide a balanced facade and replacement of glazing to main body of the house with traditionally detailed timber framed double glazed windows. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an existing single storey rear extension, a two storey side extension including garage, re- configuration of rear elevation to provide a balanced facade and replacement of glazing to main body of the house with traditionally detailed timber framed double glazed windows at 21 St George’s Road, Twickenham TW1 1QS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/3089/FUL, dated 15 August 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001-01 (A); 001-02 (C); 002-01 (A); 002-02 (C); 003-01 (A); 003-02 (C); 005-01 (A); 005-02 (C); 020-01 (A); 020a-02 (C); 020b-01 (A); 020b-02 (C); 021-01; 021-02 (C); 022a-01 (A); 022a-02 (C); 022b-01 (A); 022b-02 (C); 023-01; 030-01; 032-01; 033-01; 023-02 (B); 030-02 (B); 032-02 (B) and 033-02 (B). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The joinery, including windows and doors, to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be timber. 5) The roof area of the 2-storey side extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189273 2 Procedural Matter 2. The Council has referred to Policies LP1, LP3, LP4 and LP8 of the publication version of the emerging Local Plan. This document has yet to be formally adopted and, in the absence of any information concerning whether there are objections or not, these policies have been given limited weight in the determination of this appeal. In any event, these policies do not add materially to those cited in the reasons for refusal which are contained in the Local Development Framework. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the heritage assets. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a substantial 3-storey detached dwelling which is sited on a large plot within the St Margaret’s Estate Conservation Area. There is a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This duty is echoed in Policy DM HD 1 of the Development Management Plan (DMP). Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy (CS) also requires existing buildings and areas of recognised high quality and historic interest to be protected from inappropriate development. 5. The St Margaret’s Estate Conservation Area Study identifies that there are 3 distinct sub-areas, including the residential estate of St Margaret’s within which the property is situated. Historically, large residential plots were planned as a Victorian estate around pleasure gardens and these plots were developed by the individual owners over a period of time. The significance of this planned approach to the development of the estate was both to create a Garden Suburb and for the dwellings to be of sufficient size so that the occupiers would be obliged to become registered voters. In some cases, the plots were subdivided and semi-detached, rather than detached, dwellings have been erected. 6. Within the residential estate the dwellings are sited on large plots but there is a mix of architectural styles, including Gothic and Italianate. The St Margaret’s Conservation Area Study refers to the spaciousness associated with the gaps between each house allowing glimpses of the gardens behind the houses. However, as identified by the appellant, there are variations in the gaps between the dwellings with some significantly wider than others. These variations were noticeable along St George’s Road. 7. There are views of varying degrees between the dwellings towards either the trees within the pleasure gardens or the rear elevations and gardens of other properties. The dwellings are generally set back from the roads to the rear of front gardens which are landscaped and used for parking. Along the roads there are street trees which complement those within the residential plots and the pleasure gardens. For these reasons, the residential estate within the Conservation Area possesses a verdant and spacious character and appearance, particularly where there are wide gaps between dwellings affording views towards the open pleasure grounds to the rear. 8. The property is a non-designated heritage asset being a building of townscape merit albeit there is no clear explanation for this status. DMP Policy DM HD 3 Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189273 3 requires, amongst other matters, alterations and extensions to buildings of townscape merit to be based on an accurate understanding of the significance of the asset and to respect the architectural character and detailing of the original building. The appellant has identified the property as a good example of a Victorian period pared back Italianate detached villa with moderate intricate brickwork detailing and corbels to eaves on the front elevation. 9. Planning permission has been granted by the Council for alterations to the property (Ref 16/4102/HOT) which included a single storey side extension. The appeal scheme includes similar works to those which have been approved but a 2-storey side extension is proposed. When viewed from the road, the proposed side extension would be similar in siting, form and design to the side addition at No. 19. There would, as claimed by the appellant, be a symmetrical appearance between the extended property and No. 19 but this matter alone is not a reason for this appeal to succeed. 10. The proposed side extension is objectionable to the Council by reason of reducing the gap between the property and No. 19 which would impact on views towards the rear of the property from the road. The guidance contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: House Extensions and External Alterations (SPD) refers to development which would result in the significant erosion of an existing important space or gap between neighbouring houses as not normally being acceptable. Although the details of the approved scheme have not been provided, I am mindful that the potential erection of a single storey side extension would, to some degree, physically and visually erode the current gap and limit the available views. 11. By reason of height and width, the proposed extension would appear a subservient addition to the property and would accord with these aspects of the guidance contained in the SPD. The lack of a 1 metre set back of the proposed extension from the property’s front elevation of the property does not alter this assessment, particularly in circumstances where the addition at No. 19 is flush with its front elevation. There would be sufficient setting back of the proposed side elevation from the front elevation and the shared boundary with No. 19 to avoid any perceived appearance of a terracing effect within the streetscene. The design of the proposed extension, including its fenestration would respect the architectural character and detailing of the host property and would not detract from the appearance of the streetscene. The choice of external matching materials and timber joinery, as indicated on the submitted drawings, could be secured by condition to respect the character and appearance of the property and the wider Conservation Area. 12. From the road there are views toward the rear of the property through the current gap. These views are not, however, towards the main part of a pleasure garden but encompass the trees within the gardens of the property and No. 19 and the upper storeys of the dwellings fronting St Peter’s Road. The character of this view, which would be affected by the approved single storey addition, is both more confined in its extent and more urbanised when compared to the spacious and verdant views available towards the pleasure garden elsewhere along this side of St George’s Road, including the gaps between Nos. 11/13 and 13/15. The size and views through these other gaps are of greater importance to the identified significance the Conservation Area and its verdant and spacious character and appearance. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189273 4 13. Although there would be an erosion of the gap above the already approved single storey addition, the design, siting and scale of the proposed extension would not be an inappropriate form of development. The appeal scheme would not detract from the identified significance of this designated heritage asset, including the original planned approach to the development of the St Margaret’s residential estate. The verdant and spacious character and appearance of the estate and the Conservation Area would be retained together with the important views through the gaps between dwellings towards the pleasure grounds. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would, therefore, be preserved. For the same reasons, the proposed extension would not cause a scale of harm to the character or significance of the property as a building of townscape merit meaning that this appeal should fail. 14. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the heritage assets and, as such, it would not conflict with CS Policy CS7, DMP Policies DM HD 1, DM HD 3 and DM DC 1 and the SPD. In addition to heritage considerations, these policies also require development to be of a high architectural design; respect local character including relationships to existing townscape and frontages, scale, height, massing, proportions and form. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality design. No specific conflict has been identified with DMP Policy DC DM 5 which is principally concerned with matters related to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeded which have been assessed against the test in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For the avoidance of doubt and for reasons of proper planning, a condition is necessary to ensure that the proposed development is erected in accordance with the approved drawings. As already explained, conditions to secure the use of matching external materials and timber joinery are also necessary. 16. The suggested condition to limit the use of the roofs of the proposed extensions is unnecessary. The proposed roof terrace above the single rear storey extension would replicate what previously existed according to the drawings. However, it would be appropriate to limit the use of the proposed roof of the 2-storey side extension to avoid overlooking of neighbouring properties. 17. By reason of the nature of this proposed householder development, a landscaping condition of the type suggested by the Council is excessive and unnecessary for the scale of development proposed. The appellant could normally landscape the property’s gardens without the need for approval of the scheme by the Council. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR