63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2024 by K Williams MTCP (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/23/3325293 63 A Sheen Lane, East Sheen, Richmond Upon Thames, London SW14 8AB • 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 James Mason M and J Developments against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref 22/3729/FUL, dated 19 December 2022, was refused by notice dated 25 May 2023. • The development proposed is the demolition of an existing single storey residential use car garage and hobbyist workshop and storage building and the creation of a new two storey residential detached building. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. During the appeal, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect. However, as the Framework’s policy content insofar as it relates to the main issues has not been significantly changed there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on this latest version.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision I am satisfied no party would be prejudiced by determining the appeal accordingly. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sheen Mortlake Conservation Area (the CA) and its effect on the setting of Buildings of Townscape Merit (BTM). • Whether the proposal would be appropriate in respect of flood risk and structural stability; • Whether the proposal would provide an appropriate provision of affordable housing. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located at the rear of 63 Sheen Lane. No 63 is an end of terrace building located on the corner of Sheen Lane and Vernon Road. The appeal site consists of a small yard and single storey garage used independently of No 63. The area consists of a ‘back to back’ relationship between the rows of terraced buildings on Sheen Lane and the gardens and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5810/W/23/3325293 residential properties on Howgate Road. This layout remains highly discernible within the streetscene. 5. Although the proposed dwelling would be outside the CA, the proposed external area forms part of the appeal site and is within it. I have therefore paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 6. The significance of the CA is derived from the well-preserved and cohesive architectural quality and pattern of built development, which reflects the historic commercial and residential growth of the area. This is further emphasised by several buildings along Sheen Lane having been identified as BTM, which are non-designated heritage assets. The BTM fronting Sheen Lane consist of modest terraced buildings of traditional appearance. 7. The residential property at 42 Howgate Road backs on the side of the appeal site with a smaller electricity substation between the two sites. It has a smaller detached garage/outbuilding at the end of its garden adjacent to the sub- station.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, whilst occupying the same position as the existing garage the overall height of the proposed development would be higher and noticeably larger than the current building, sub-station and the neighbouring garage fronting Vernon Road. It would therefore fill more of the space and appear more prominent in the area between the rows of buildings on Sheen Lane and Howgate Road. 8. It has been put to me that the proposal would appear as an original ancillary building. Whilst outbuildings are not uncommon, I am not aware of any historical precedent for an outbuilding the scale and form of that proposed at the modest No 63. Whilst there were rear extensions, I could not discern any similar outbuildings at the rear of the BTM. There may be examples of repurposed ancillary buildings within Sheen, Richmond and London, but the limited evidence does not identify how they are directly comparable to the current appeal, in terms of location, context and appearance or whether surrounding buildings are BTM. 9. No 63 does not fall within the identified BTM on Sheen Lane, and the appeal proposal would not significantly obscure the views of the rear of the BTM fronting Sheen Lane.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, the proposal would be seen in the context of the front and rear of these buildings due to the relatively wide junction and footways, around Vernon Road and Sheen Lane. 10. Although the two-storey building will sit lower into the site, its height and external appearance which includes the first floor window features on the side, the arched windows and doors fronting Vernon Road would clearly identify the building as a separate independent dwelling not a service building or ancillary building to No 63. Whilst I note there are larger dormer windows on the rear of the properties on Howgate Road, the proposal would be seen within a closer, more visually apparent and immediate context in the street scene. 11. I note the materials would be high quality, reflecting brick used in the locality and detail of No 63, but having regard to the nature of its use it would appear at odds with the general scale pattern of development in the immediate locality at the rear of terraces on Sheen Lane and Howgate Road, in a highly visible https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5810/W/23/3325293 location fronting Vernon Road. As such the proposal would appear incongruous within this streetscene. 12. Consequently, notwithstanding that this is a single dwelling the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA or its setting. The proposal would also harm the setting of the BTM. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and non-designated heritage assets. In the case of the CA, the Framework requires at paragraph 208 that the identified harm should be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate securing its optimal viable use. 13. The proposal would result in the provision of one new dwelling, close to public transport links which would help contribute to housing supply. There would be economic benefits arising from its construction and occupation, and support to local services. However, these benefits would be relatively limited in light of the modest scale of the proposal. 14. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing garage although it appears to have a functional and ancillary role to No 63, I see no harm in its demolition.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, whilst the existing garage adds nothing to the architectural merits of the area and has a neutral effect on the setting of the CA and the BTM, its replacement with the proposed building would cause harm. Therefore, the weight I can attribute to this is limited. 15. In this case, no public benefits, which would outweigh the harm have been identified. On the other side of the balance, the Framework requires great weight to be given to the assets conservation. 16. Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, its setting and the setting of the BTM. It would conflict with Policies LP1, LP3 ,LP4 and LP39 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan). Together and insofar as they are relevant to the appeal these require, amongst other things, that development is of high architectural quality, conserves the historic environment and reflects the character of surrounding areas. Flood Risk and Structural Stability 17. There is a need for it to be demonstrated that basements can be safely developed without increasing groundwater related flood risk.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant submitted a Basement Impact Assessment Groundwater Screening Assessment (GSA) with the planning application. I appreciate that knowledge of the area suggests the groundwater level may be approximately 3m below ground, which would therefore be about 1m below the base of the proposed structure. The inspection pit currently present on site is also deeper than the proposed development and no flooding of this feature has been recorded. Nonetheless the floor area to be lowered is greater than that of the Inspection pit and the GSA also states that the water table position is not accurately known. 18. Policy PL11 if the Local Plan requires that proposals demonstrate the scheme safeguards the structural stability of the existing buildings, neighbouring buildings and other infrastructure. Being positioned next to public footway and electricity substation as such it would require a structural impact assessment. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5810/W/23/3325293 19. I have considered whether these matters could be dealt with by the imposition of conditions. Given the uncertainty surrounding the impacts of the development on groundwater, local infrastructure and as any subsequent extent of any amendments or mitigation are unknown, I do not consider that a condition in either respect would meet the test of reasonableness. 20. Through causing potential harm to flood risk, the proposal would conflict with Policy LP21 of the Local Plan, as well as policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP), which together seek to ensure that flood risk, is minimised and mitigated. The proposal would conflict with policies LP11, the provisions of which I have referred to above. There would also be conflict with the Framework, paragraphs 96 and 165 which seeks to achieve safe places and not increase flood risk. The proposal would also conflict with the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as supported by the Basement Assessment User Guide 2021, which provides advice regarding the need for basement proposals to consider a range of impacts, including flooding. Affordable housing 21.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Policy LP36 of the Local Plan expects an affordable housing contribution on all housing sites. In the case of the appeal scheme, the policy seeks a financial contribution in line with the scales set out in the policy and also the Affordable Housing SPD 2014 (AH SPD). Whether or not this is onerous, it is clearly set out in the Council’s Policy. In this regard the appellant is willing to make the relevant contribution identified by the Council if the appeal were to succeed. 22. In the circumstances of this case where there is no formal agreement or undertaking through a planning obligation provided as part of the appeal submissions, there is no certainty that the necessary contribution will be made and no means of securing it through the appeal process. Nor is there evidence that the required amount has already been paid to the Council. 23. As a consequence, the proposal would not deliver an appropriate affordable housing contribution and would cause harm to the delivery of affordable housing in the Borough. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy LP36 of the Local Plan, the AH SPD insofar as they relate to the delivery of affordable housing. Conclusion 24.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations in this instance. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

63 Sheen Lane, Sheen, London, SW14 8AB — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — K Williams INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4