Side roof dormer to right hand side to facilitate additional room at 2nd floor level, removal of rear chimney stack. New rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 July 2025 by L J O'Brien BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10TH July 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000133 27 Princes Road, Richmond Upon Thames, Teddington, TW11 0RL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Damian Harrington against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 24/2475/HOT • The development proposed is side roof dormer to right hand side to facilitate additional room at 2nd floor level, removal of rear chimney stack. New rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in December 2024, during the consideration of this appeal. Insofar as is directly relevant to the appeal, there are no substantive changes and no parties have been prejudiced as a result. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area; including whether or not the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Royal Road Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a three-storey dwelling which is part of a semi-detached pair of similar dwellings. The dwellings are constructed of red brick with attractive detailing in a lighter colour. Both properties within the pair benefit from a large ground floor bay window, three arched windows above with two central rectangular windows on the second floor. Prominent chimney stacks are present at the outer edge of the roofs of both properties within the pair. The detailed designs and the strong symmetry ensure that the dwellings are a visually attractive feature within the street scene. Another similarly designed pair is present further along the road. These pairs stand taller than neighbouring properties and, as such, appear as prominent features within the area. 5. The property is situated within the Royal Road Conservation Area (CA) which is characterised by, and in part derives its significance from, examples of interesting and well-detailed Victorian developments built in high quality materials with attractive architectural detailing. Appeal Decision 6000133 2 6. The Royal Road Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) states that the majority of properties on Princes Road are organised into groups of two to four dwellings and sets out that most dwellings are constructed of mixed London stock brick, with decorative elements such as string coursing, decorative ridge tiles, large chimney stacks and decorative stone surrounds to fenestration. Properties along the opposite side of Princes Road to the appeal site differ greatly in design terms and do not fall within the CA. The appeal property is part of a group of two and demonstrates many of the features set out within the CAA thus making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. 7. I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In addition to the requirement under section 72 of The Act, the CA is also a designated heritage asset as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. 8. The proposed dormer window would be set back from the front of the host dwelling behind the existing front chimney stack. The rear chimney stack would, however, be removed. Due to its set-back and the retention of the front chimney stack the proposal would ensure that a reasonably sized area of the existing roof slope would remain. Nevertheless, the proposed dormer would be only very slightly set- in from the eaves and would meet the existing ridge line of the host building without a set down. As such, the resultant dormer would not appear subordinate to the existing dwelling and would fail to assimilate comfortably within the roof slope, appearing as a conspicuous addition to the property. 9. Furthermore, though the front chimney stack would be retained, the proposed dormer would erode the prominence of the stack when viewed from the street and would reduce the impact of this key feature. When viewed in the wider context, the proposal would also unbalance the pair of dwellings of which the host property is part and would not be sympathetic to the overall composition of the buildings. The loss of the symmetry of the host pair would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwellings and the wider area. 10. I accept that surrounding buildings and vegetation would provide some degree of screening of the proposal. However, this screening would be limited to certain viewing angles and in my view, the proposed dormer would appear as a highly visible feature nonetheless. 11. The appellant suggests that other properties in the area have had similar dormer windows approved. However, the existence of other examples is not sufficient reason to justify the grant of planning permission; each case must be determined on its own merits based on the specific circumstances at each site. These circumstances will rarely, if ever, be identical. 12. The appellant has drawn my attention to schemes in Park Road and Trinder Mews. However, in both of these schemes the proposed dormer windows appear to sit below the existing ridge height. Moreover, these schemes are situated some distance from the appeal site and sit within different visual contexts. These other schemes, therefore, do not provide compelling evidence to suggest that planning permission should be granted in this instance. Appeal Decision 6000133 3 13. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the proposal would appear as an unduly dominant addition which would not respect the scale and proportions of the host dwelling, or the pair of which it is part, and would visually compete with the existing roofscape. The proposal would, therefore, cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and to the wider CA. Due to the small scale of the proposal this harm would be less than substantial. 14. The approach in the Framework is that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a heritage asset, as in this case, that harm should be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, there is nothing before me which suggests that any notable public benefits would be achieved as a result of the proposal. On the other side of the balance, I have identified that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and as such would not meet the statutory requirements set out in s72 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 and would cause harm to the significance of the heritage asset. The Framework indicates that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation. Accordingly, the public benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm identified. 15. Consequently, I find that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the pair of which it is part and the wider area. The proposal would thus fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, July 2018 (LP) which seeks to ensure that all development is of a high architectural and urban design quality which respects, contributes to and enhances the local environment and character and states that the high quality character and heritage of the borough will need to be maintained and enhanced where opportunities arise. The proposal would also conflict with LP Policy LP3 which states that all proposals in Conservation Areas are required to preserve and, where possible, enhance the character or the appearance of the Conservation Area. 16. The proposal would also fail to accord with some of the guidance set out within the Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD is clear that roof extensions should not dominate the original roof and should ensure sensitivity to the existing character. The SPD also states that developments should try to retain all chimney stacks and pots. 17. The development would also fall short of the expectations of The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which broadly promotes high standards of design and states that developments should be visually attractive and sympathetic to the character of the area. The Framework further sets out that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. 18. Though I accept that in a number of ways the proposal would meet the requirements set out within the adopted local planning policy, the proposal is in a sensitive location and these considerations are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified and my overall finding that, when considered as a whole, the proposal would conflict with the policies set out above. Appeal Decision 6000133 4 Conclusion 19. For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted. Therefore, taking all other matters raised into account, the appeal is dismissed. L J O'Brien INSPECTOR