Demolition of the existing side dormer and modifications to the roof to form a gable end

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 August 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3205036 88 Ennerdale Road, Kew TW9 2DL  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 Paul Harper against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 17/4004/HOT, dated 20 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of the existing side dormer and modifications to the roof to form a gable end. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan was adopted on 3 July 2018 and replaces the Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (2011) and the Core Strategy (2009). I am required to consider the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision and therefore the policies in the replaced documents are no longer relevant to the appeal. I am satisfied that the policies in the Local Plan (2018) are not materially different from those in the publication version referred to in the decision notice and therefore have not deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on this matter. 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018. I am satisfied that this revised Framework does not differ from the 2012 Framework in respect of the matters before me and have not therefore deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on the revised Framework. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of host building and the group of properties of which it forms part and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Kew Gardens Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a handsome semi-detached 2-storey Edwardian house. It is at one end of a group of similar high quality properties situated in a Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3205036 2 residential street within the Kew Garden Conservation Area. To the other side there is a flat-roofed 3-storey terrace. The architectural quality of the group and the positive contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area are matters to which I attribute significant weight. 6. The property includes dormers on the side and rear roof slopes which were added following a planning permission granted in 2012. These dormers are relatively subordinate elements and to a large degree replicate the dormers on the attached pair, 90 Ennerdale Road. As such the original symmetrical arrangement of the pair has been retained, a matter to which I attach substantial weight. 7. The proposal would involve the removal of the existing dormers and the expansion of the roof by way of the formation of a gable to the side and the installation of a large dormer to the rear. These works would add substantial bulk to the roof and severely disrupt the symmetrical arrangement of the pair, both when viewed from the street and from the rear. Due to its design, siting, bulk and massing the expanded roof would be an incongruous addition that would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the group of houses of which it forms parts. As such it would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 8. For these reasons the proposal fails to comply with Local Plan Policies LP1 and LP4. The former requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality that contributes to and enhances the local environment, and the latter seeks to preserve, and where possible enhance, the significance, character and setting of non-designated heritage assets. There is also conflict with the guiding principles in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document House Extension and External Alterations (2015) and the aims of the Framework. 9. Reference has been made to gable-ended properties and recent roof additions in the surrounding area. However, as each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits having regarding to its particular context and design, I attribute limited weight to the schemes referred to by the appellant. 10. I recognise that proposal would provide the appellant with more and better quality space within the roof for his family. However this private benefit does not outweigh the harm identified above. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR