Erection of render on the two front bay windows on the front elevation of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3195647 53 Eglantine Road, London SW18 2DE  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 Nahill Younis against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application Ref 2017/6231, dated 9 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 January 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of render on the two front bay windows on the front elevation of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of render on the two front bay windows on the front elevation of the property at 53 Eglantine Road, London SW18 2DE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/6231, dated 9 November 2017. Procedural Matter 2. The works have been carried out and I shall therefore treat the proposal as being retrospective. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a three storey house of individual design. This adjoins another house of individual design after which there is a terrace of 6 houses of uniform appearance. Although there is variation in the detailed design of houses there is cohesiveness in terms of the height of the buildings, their distance back from the street, the repetition of two storey bays and the materials used. The houses appear to date from the late 19th or early 20th centuries. The southern frontage of Eglantine Road, including the site is within the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area and the St Anne’s Hill Character Area. 5. I saw that the original detailing of the houses largely remains intact and that this forms one of the characteristics of the Conservation Area. There are properties on which render has been extensively applied but they form a small proportion of the buildings as a whole. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3195647 2 that small-scale alterations to individual properties in the character area disrupt the cohesive appearance of groups and that rendering and painting of brickwork are particular problems. The Appraisal in paragraph 11.7 refers to ‘excessive render’ as having a seriously damaging effect. 6. The appeal building is of yellow/buff brick with contrasting red brick detailing and a slate roof. It has a two storey bay with cornice detailing above the first floor bay window and at eaves level. The surrounds of the two bay windows have been rendered and painted white. The heads and cills of the other windows and part of the detailing around the entrance porch are also painted white. 7. The appellant says that the rendering was necessary to repair the bays as the brickwork was crumbling. The Council’s Conservation and Design Group dispute the need for such treatment and question its effectiveness in addressing any damage to the brickwork caused by moisture. Irrespective of the effectiveness of the render as a repair, I find that the rendered bays do not detract from the original architecture of the building. The bays provide contrast with the brickwork consistently with the other painted features. The rendering is not dominant or excessive in relation to the front elevation of the property. 8. Such contrasting treatment of windows is a consistent feature of houses in the Conservation Area whether painting or rendering has been applied to brickwork or original features in other materials have been painted. I do not find that painting of such features alone necessarily detracts from the original architecture. In this context the development is in keeping with, and preserves, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The rendered treatment of the bay windows contrasts with the brick bay windows of the immediately adjoining houses but as the building is of individual design this difference is not disruptive in terms of this group. 9. Policy IS3 of the Core Strategy1 and policy DMS1 of the Development Management Policies (DMP)2 require protection and reinforcement of character and heritage and that design contributes positively to local character. Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2016) requires materials and architectural detail to be sympathetic to heritage assets and policy DMS2 of the DMP requires conservation of features that contribute to the heritage asset’s significance and character. Policy DMH5 of the DMP sets out detailed requirements in respect of alterations to dwellings. For the reasons given above I conclude that the development accords with those policies and that it does not harm the character and appearance of the area. As the development has taken place it is not necessary to impose conditions requiring approval of materials or for development to be in accordance with approved plans. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR 1 Wandsworth Local Plan Core Strategy (2016) 2 Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies Document (2016)