New rain water downpipe and external wall insulation to the flank with a brick slip finish

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/17/3183500 1 Dewhurst Road, Hammersmith and Fulham, London W14 0ET  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 Thomas Studd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.  The application Ref 2017/01975/FUL, dated 12 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 10 July 2017.  The development proposed is a new rain water downpipe and external wall insulation to the flank with a brick slip finish. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new rain water downpipe and external wall insulation to the flank with a brick slip finish at 1 Dewhurst Road, Hammersmith and Fulham, London W14 0ET in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/01975/FUL, dated 12 May 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 86 S2 100, 86 S2 00, 86 S2 01, 86 S2 02, 86 P2 00, 86 P2 01, and 86 P2 02. 3) The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of the brick slips, including a sample panel, and detailed drawings (at a scale of not less than 1:20) of a section through the main wall and a typical junction, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lakeside/Sinclair/Blythe Road Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site falls within the Lakeside/Sinclair/Blythe Road Conservation Area (‘CA’), which is a designated heritage asset as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’). Framework paragraphs 131 and 132 state Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/17/3183500 2 that in determining planning applications account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. This is in line with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of development affecting conservation areas, which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character or appearance. 4. The CA is quite extensive, but broadly comprises Victorian era properties, often finished in bricks of varying hue, which display significant architectural detailing and embellishment on their front elevations. That detailing, together with the regular form and rhythm of the properties, gives the area a consistent and cohesive appearance. 5. The appeal property has an attractive front face, which is typical of other properties in this part of Dewhurst Road, and contributes to the CA’s character. However, in common with some nearby end of terrace dwellings, its flank wall is plain and unadorned. Consequently, although the wall is quite visible in the streetscene, its contribution to the area’s significance is limited. Nevertheless, its position relative to the roof does clearly reveal the dwelling’s locally distinctive overhanging eaves. 6. The proposal would involve the provision of approximately 75mm of insulation to No. 1’s flank, together with a 25mm brick slip finish. The resultant wall would project slightly further to the side, and the appellant calculates that the eaves overhang would reduce from approximately 400mm to 300mm. However, given the distance to the eaves in views from the highway and from nearby properties, that limited reduction would be barely perceptible. The host property’s characteristic eaves overhang would remain. 7. Design Policy 36 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (‘SPD’) states that external walls should be retained in their original condition and should not be clad. However, at section 3 of his Design and Access Statement (‘DAS’) the appellant has provided persuasive evidence that London stock slips could be sourced and sooted, which would closely resemble the existing brickwork in tone, patina and weathered appearance. 8. Furthermore, the positioning of a new rain water downpipe on the front corner would assist in screening the junction between the slips and the existing brickwork. The external finish and colour of the dwellings in the CA is quite varied, as illustrated by the photographs at section 1.2 of the DAS. In that context, and for the above reasons, the proposal would not harm the host property and would not be out of keeping with the area. 9. The scheme would be to a high design standard, would successfully integrate with the existing building, and would respect the local context and character. Whether or not there are alternative means of achieving the improved thermal performance and energy efficiency that the appellant desires, subject to appropriate conditions, this scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the area, including the CA. Consequently, it would not conflict with Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 Policy BE1, or Hammersmith and Fulham Development Management Local Plan 2013 Policies DM G3 or DM G7. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/17/3183500 3 10. For similar reasons, and as the appellant has appropriately described the effect of the proposal on the significance of the CA, the scheme would comply with SPD Design Policies 31, 38, 60 and 61. Whilst it would not accord with the advice at SPD Design Policy 36, I have found that the proposed cladding would not cause any harm. As the scheme would preserve the CA, it would accord with the Framework, and would satisfy the statutory test. 11. Turning to the matter of conditions, I have considered those suggested by the Council against the tests in the Framework. I have imposed the standard time limit condition, and, in the interests of certainty, a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 12. A selection of London stock bricks is included at part 3.2 of the DAS, whilst drawing no. 86 P2 02 and DAS part 3.1 include sections and an isometric view of the proposal. However, notwithstanding those details, in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and to ensure that the CA’s significance would not be harmed, a pre-commencement condition is necessary requiring the submission and approval of a sample panel of the proposed brick slips, and large scale section and junction details. My condition also requires that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 13. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR