For a roof extension to a two storey front gable

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 June 2019 by E Symmons BSc (Hons), MSc an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/19/3224463 The Lodge, Barge Walk, Hampton Wick KT1 4AB • 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 Carole Hiley (Keith Hiley Associates Ltd) against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. • The application ref 19/0010/HOT, dated 2 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 5 March 2019. • The development proposed is for a roof extension to a two storey front gable. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a roof extension to a two-storey front gable at The Lodge, Barge Walk, Hampton Wick KT1 4AB in accordance with the terms of application reference 19/0010/HOT, 2 January 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans: 1562/101A, 1562/102A, 1562/103 and 1562/104 all received on 3 January 2019. 3) The external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the construction of the existing building. Background and main issue 2. The proposed development is within Metropolitan Open Land which the London Plan1 considers to have equivalent protection to Green Belt. The parties do not consider that the proposals would represent inappropriate development and I have no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Reasons 3. The property is on the southern periphery of Area 6 of the Hampton Court Park Conservation Area (CA) which is the setting for Hampton Court Palace. It is situated and accessed from Barge Walk which is a towpath running from Kingston Bridge to Hampton Court Bridge which gives views across and along the Thames. This two-storey semi-detached dwelling sits within a small group of properties. To one side is Parkfield which is a three storey Edwardian 1 The Spatial Development Strategy for London, consolidated with alterations since 2011. Adopted March 2016. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/19/3224463 2 detached dwelling which dominates views of the group of dwellings. To the other side is The Wilderness which is a two storey Victorian dwelling. Barge Walk appears to be a popular recreational route which has controlled resident only vehicle access. The appeal dwelling is set back from Barge Walk by a long front drive/garden which is enclosed by a high close board fence. Views of the dwelling are possible on approach along Barge Walk. 4. The Hampton Village SPD seeks “protection of the river and landscape setting from development pressure which may harm the balance of the river and landscape-dominated setting, and the obstruction or spoiling of views, skylines and landmarks”. This group of buildings is not specifically referred to in the CA statement or Draft Hampton Village Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (Hampton Village SPD). However, both documents refer to Barge Walk as offering “an uninterrupted riverside walk of great quality”. The appeal property contributes to the CA by virtue of its own inherent design and appearance. 5. S72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I pay particular attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that when considering the impact of proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 6. Many of the recommendations within the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD 20152 (House Extensions SPD) relate to properties within residential streets where there is a common design theme. In this case, the properties in the group are very individual in character and appearance. The House Extensions SPD also has a general guiding principle that extensions should reflect the existing character, detail and proportions of the property. It considers that proposals should seek to enhance the appearance of the building from its current form. Additionally, roof extensions should be in scale with the existing structure and should not dominate the original roof. Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan) seeks, amongst other considerations, that the design of the development relates to its context, including the public realm. Policy LP3 relates specifically to CAs and requires development to conserve, and where possible, make a positive contribution to the CA. 7. This dwelling, which makes a positive contribution to the CA, has evolved and been altered over time and does not retain original historical features. The current form consists of two front gables which date from around 1990 and are subservient to the main roof ridge height. They reflect one another with respect to design and upper window layout however, they are not symmetrical as the ground floors are different and the southern gable sits forward of the main front elevation. 8. When considering the proposal directly from the front, the southern gable appears proportionate to the host dwelling. However, on approach from the north, the existing gable has a somewhat incongruous appearance as it sits considerably below the ridge height. The proposal would raise the height of this 2 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan House and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, 2015. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/19/3224463 3 gable to 150 millimetres above the roof ridge height. Although the lack of subordination to the ridge height conflicts with advice within the House Extensions SPD, the height difference would be slight and would not be obvious when viewed from the opposite bank of the river and would therefore not detract from the landscape value of the riverside and not conflict with the Hampton Village SPD or conservation area statement. 9. The ridge height difference would increase the scale and dominance of this gable which could be visible from Barge Walk. However, Parkfield and The Wilderness have a much greater scale and dominance within the landscape than the appeal property. The subservient relationship of the appeal property to these buildings would visually offset the increased gable height making the proposal more acceptable. Additionally, both properties have variable roof forms and raised gable features, albeit these are at ridge height. The front gables are not original features and therefore, on balance, I do not consider that within the context of The Wilderness, Parkfield and the riverside landscape in general, this proposal would have a significant effect upon the riverscape or the character or appearance of the CA. 10. In addition to the raised gable height the proposal would introduce a side dormer. This would be a modest addition which the Council have not objected to and I concur with this view. Due to the potential for overlooking of side windows at Parkfield, this proposed roof dormer would be obscure glazed and fixed shut. I am satisfied this would ensure privacy for occupiers at Parkfield. 11. In conclusion, the proposals would alter the design of the front elevation however, I consider this would have a neutral effect upon the character and appearance of the dwelling. The proposal would therefore preserve the character and the appearance of the riverside landscape and the Hampton Court Park CA. As such the proposal does not conflict with Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Local Plan. Conditions 12. The conditions set out in this decision are based on those suggested by the Council. These conditions have been considered against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on conditions. Those included are found to be reasonable and necessary. 13. In addition to the standard condition regarding the time period for implementation, there is a need for a condition specifying the plans to which the permission relates, in the interests of certainty and clarity. Similarly, condition 3 refers to the requirement for materials to match the existing which is in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the CA. Conclusion 14. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed. E Symmons INSPECTOR