Loft conversion including the removal of existing butterfly roof and construction of new pitched roof behind the existing parapet wall and a mansard construction to the rear

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3189347 101 Archway Street, Barnes, London SW13 0AN  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 Mrs Michelle Smith against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 17/2945/HOT, dated 3 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2017.  The development proposed is a ‘loft conversion including the removal of existing butterfly roof and construction of new pitched roof behind the existing parapet wall and a mansard construction to the rear’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Thorne Passage Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a terraced house whose historical, architectural and townscape interest is recognised by its status as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM). The dwelling sits within an attractive street which is home to different groups of terraced properties with traditional roofs set at various heights and a range of fenestrations and detailing. These elements make a noticeable and positive contribution to the distinctive character of Archway Street, which sits within the CA and forms an important component part. 4. The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘Buildings of Townscape Merit’ (BTM SPD) explains that by drawing attention to the historic, architectural and townscape interest of such buildings, it is hoped that owners and others will regard them more carefully when considering any proposals for alteration, extension or replacement. The SPD goes on to explain that the removal of original or characteristic features, or the introduction of unsympathetic windows, doors or materials can not only destroy the visual quality of one building but erode the entire character and interest of an area. Meanwhile, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189347 2 ‘House Extensions and External Alterations’ (HEEA SPD) explains that roof extensions to the front of a house should be avoided, roof extensions should not project above the ridgeline and they should not dominate the original roof. 5. The appeal property sits prominently within the row mainly because of its tall parapet front wall which is noticeably taller than the eaves of the neighbouring dwellings. This is a somewhat unique and attractive anomaly which draws the eye and adds interest to both the character and appearance of the street scene. 6. From the roadside, the tall parapet wall screens the existing butterfly roof. The proposal would see the roof of the appeal property raised significantly. Its profile would completely change to a sloping roof at the front rising to the centre where it would be met by a flat roof mansard style section to the rear. Although an appropriate roof tile could be used, the proposal would be a bulky and cumbersome addition which would radically alter the existing attractive form and proportions of the dwelling and would degrade its appearance and overall character. Further, the proposed addition would detract from the existing attractive relationship between the appeal dwelling and the traditional terraced houses either side. The harmful effects of the proposed addition would be widely visible within the street scene. 7. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal fails to respond to the architectural character and detailing of this BTM and it would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. This harm would be ‘less than substantial’ as directed by the Planning Practice Guidance, but I attach considerable importance and weight to the statutory duty imposed by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to say that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 9. The appellant has not suggested that there would be any public benefits arising from the proposal. I appreciate the appellant’s need for additional accommodation and I accept that the extension could well be cheaper than a move to a bigger dwelling. Nevertheless, these positive aspects of the scheme do not outweigh the harm I have identified. 10. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Framework, policy CP7 of the adopted London Borough of Richmond Local Development Framework Core Strategy, policies DM DC1, DM HD1 and DM HD3 of the adopted Development Management Plan and the BTM and HEEA SPDs. These policies and guidance require new development to be of high architectural and design quality which should conserve and enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas and BTMs. Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR