Two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2017 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3195470 1 Willow Cottages, Richmond, TW9 3AT  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 Mark Claydon against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/4239/HOT, dated 27 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension. 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 property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling on a corner plot facing Westerly Ware Park and alongside well used pedestrian-only routes. The property has attractive elevations, is nicely proportioned and enjoys a relatively generous side garden area. It is designated, like its neighbours, as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM). It reflects one of the number of styles of home which is found in this established ‘village-like’ setting and which, along with the open spaces and the movement network, come together to form an area of good quality established residential character with a pleasing appearance and an air of aesthetic charm. 4. The proposal is as described above and would provide for a new entrance, cloakroom and bathroom accommodation. The scheme also involves a new ground floor living room window, in lieu of a glazed door, as well as a re-sited first floor landing / staircase window. 5. The site lies within the Kew Green Conservation Area. There is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Policy HD1 of the Council’s Development Management Plan (DMP) reflects this Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3195470 2 and adds more detail about further Council actions intended to ensure the safeguarding of these heritage assets. DMP Policy HD3 also seeks to secure development that is suited to architectural and historic context and the preservation or enhancement of heritage assets including BTMs. 6. The Willow Cottage terrace embodying the appeal property is symmetrical at first floor level and this is agreeably apparent from public views within the Park. Even with the set back planned and the subservience of the roof the proposed development would intrude upon this symmetry and the unbalancing effect would be regrettable. 7. This corner is relatively prominent not least because of the immediate path network. Seen from certain angles, notwithstanding the garden size, the development would appear unduly cramped. This would be because of the relationship and close proximity to the ‘Coach House’ which is lower in roof level and abuts to the rear of the side garden. It would also stem from the awkward and overly-tight positioning of the extension and new flank windows and the upper window being too close to, and in part above, the eaves height of the adjoining Coach House. 8. Contrary to the Appellant’s argument I would not view the Coach House’s relevant elevation as something to be part obscured. To my mind it needs to be read as a whole where possible despite its different characteristics from the appeal property. It calls for a degree of space beyond that planned. Its lower hipped roof should also be able to be seen as completely as possible at the end where it abuts into the appeal property in this quirky but interesting juxtaposition. 9. Policy DC1 of the DMP is relevant to this case. Amongst other matters, it calls for protection of local distinctiveness with high quality design and suitable scale and detail sympathetic to a host building and its wider setting. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with this policy. It would also run contrary to the aims of S72(1) of the Act and Policies HD1 and HD3 of the DMP because there would not be preservation or enhancement of character or appearance of the Conservation Area And there would be harm to BTMs. Other matters 10. I do sympathise with the wish for additional accommodation and I can see that the Appellant has sought to overcome previous objections by the submission of this revised scheme. I note there is some local support for the proposal and I would concur that there would be no undue loss of residential amenity. It is interesting, but not determining, that there might appear to have been a two storey extension here in the past. 11. Similarly I can see that extension works have taken place on some nearby identified properties but they do vary from the scheme before me by reason of, for example, their setting and relationship to other properties and spaces. They do not point to a precedent for the case in hand which must be judged on its own merits in the light of the precise nature of the appeal scheme, this dwelling and planning policies which now prevail. 12. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3195470 3 13. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) have been considered. Key objectives of the Framework are to protect and enhance the qualities of the built environment as well as to safeguard heritage assets; development plan policies which I cite mirror these. The Framework underlines that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation. The appeal proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset however what public benefits there would be, such as construction employment, would not outweigh this harm. Furthermore there are no other benefits, including to the Appellant, which to my mind would be of a scale to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area or the BTMs which I have identified. Overall conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR