Demolition of existing garage and construction of new garage with proposed living accommodation within loft space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2019 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/19/3220791 111 Fairfax Road, Teddington, TW11 9DA • 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 Laidlow against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref 18/2918/FUL, dated 21 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 November 2018. • The development proposed is Demolition of existing garage and construction of new garage with proposed living accommodation within loft space. 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 surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling, arranged over three floors. It is located in a part of Fairfax Road which is highly mixed in character and appearance, comprising of detached or semi-detached dwellings of varying age and architectural styles and designs. The dwelling, particularly when viewed from the front and side, is relatively unspoilt with balanced fenestration and displays many original features typical of its era. It is of considerable character and as such makes a positive contribution to the wider street scene. 4. The appeal property has been identified by the Council as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM). Policy LP4 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) (LP) requires development to preserve and where possible enhance, the significance, character and setting of non-designated heritage assets, including Buildings of Townscape Merit. The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) at paragraph 197 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining applications. Policy LP1 of the LP generally requires all development to be of a high quality and urban design quality and to be compatible with local character. 5. The proposal would replace an existing single storey garage which is low in height and is well integrated with the main dwelling, with the mono pitch roof Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/19/3220791 2 over the front bay window and front entrance, wrapping round across the garage to the side of the dwelling. Given its low profile, the existing structure does not detract from the character and appearance of the main dwelling. 6. The proposed garage, with accommodation within the loft space above, would be a much higher structure, with a pitch roof design and with a front gable facing towards Fairfax Road. 7. The proposed garage would be of a similar width to the existing garage structure. However, as a result of its combined width, height and design, it would be out of keeping with the host dwelling and would appear visually intrusive and incongruous. In particular, the resultant front gable would appear out of scale and proportion with the host dwelling and whilst set back from the front elevation, would not appear sufficiently subordinate to it. As a result, the proposal would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling. 8. The appellant states that there is a clear distinction between the host property and the proposed extension. Whilst the roof of the proposed extension would slope away from the flank wall of the host dwelling at first floor level, due to its siting and overall height and design, the extension would still partly obscure and detract from the overall appearance of the BTM when viewed from Fairfax Road. The proposal would result in harm, albeit limited, to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset. 9. Overall, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the BTM and would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the street scene and wider locality in this regard. As such it would be contrary to LP policies LP1 and LP4 insofar as they require development to be of a high quality, to respect local character and to preserve and where possible enhance, the significance and character of non-designated heritage assets. The proposal would also conflict with the NPPF which states, amongst other things, that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. Other matter 10. The appellant has made reference to the size and scale of other dwellings in Fairfax Road and the positioning of some neighbouring buildings closer to the road frontage than the appeal proposal. Whilst I have had regard to these comments, they do not alter my findings on the main issue. In any event, I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits. Conclusion 11. For the above reason, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR