Installation of a 6 panel/1.71kW solar PV system to the front/south roof pitch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2021 by Max Webb BA (Hons) Decision by K Taylor BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/D/21/3269425 95 Erconwald Street, London W12 0BU • 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 Dawodu against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. • The application Ref 2020/02679/FUL, dated 15 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2020. • The development is installation of a 6 panel/1.71kW solar PV system to the front/south roof pitch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matter 3. The original planning application was made retrospectively. The appeal has therefore been considered on the same retrospective basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area (OOWCA) is made up of predominantly red brick and tiled roofed properties. In the area around the appeal site, the properties have mostly red tiles and there is an unaltered roofline. The Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area Character Profile (2018) describes the complementing materials between neighbouring properties as a key aspect of the Conservation Area. The appeal property makes a positive contribution to the OOWCA through its conforming materials, architectural details and uniform roof form. The appeal property is part of a small crescent shaped terrace that forms part of a group of four identical terraces set around communal gardens and a crossroad. 6. The solar panels protrude from the roof of the front elevation of the building. Whilst there may only be six, they occupy a significant portion of the roof Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/21/3269425 2 space. Therefore, the panels interrupt the uniform roof form of the host building and the other complementary terrace groups around the crossroads. There are very few examples of any sort of roof alterations, including rooflights, dormers or other solar panels, to the front elevations of properties on nearby streets. This means the solar panels neither complement nor harmonise and therefore look unsympathetic to both the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Any potential increase in the prevalence of solar panels in the area in line with sustainability goals is not certain and, in any case, future applications would be judged on their individual planning merits. This does not justify the harm caused by the presence of the existing solar panels. 7. Whilst the materials used may be high quality, the solar panels are sat on a property with red bricks and red tiles, and in an area dominated by red brick properties. Therefore, the black of the solar panels appears prominent and incongruent with the host dwelling, the other properties in the terrace groups and the wider OOWCA. 8. Although the property is sat in a curved crescent, and has architectural details covering part of two of the panels, they are still highly visible from within the crossroads. In addition, the panels draw the eye when walking in a north- westward direction along Wulfstan Street and north-eastward direction along Erconwald Street towards the crossroads, because of their overall size and non- conforming materials. Although it is suggested that putting the solar panels on the rear elevation would decrease their output by 50%, their positioning on the front elevation makes the panels highly visible and therefore a significant interruption to the uniformity of the properties in this area. 9. The panels interrupt the view in a relatively small part of the Conservation Area, and therefore the harm caused to the heritage asset is less than substantial. Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires, when this is the case, that the harm is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The solar panels provide sustainable energy for the host dwelling and potentially provide unused energy back to the national grid, and this is a public benefit. The Framework also requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, the public benefit is only on a small scale, and thus this does not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the OOWCA. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. It therefore does not accord with Policies DC1, DC4 and DC8 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018), which together aim to ensure high quality design compatible with the character of the area, particularly in relation to conservation areas. It is also contrary to Key Principles CAG2, CAG3 and CAG5 of the Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018), which together seek for development to protect the visual quality of the area and be sympathetic to existing character, and that solar panels should be integrated into the design of the building. Although the Framework promotes the prudent use of natural resources, protecting the built environment is also a fundamental part of achieving sustainable development. For the reasons given above, the development does not achieve this and therefore there is also conflict with the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/H5390/D/21/3269425 3 Other Matter 11. The appellant has indicated that the planning officer’s report was not made available to them prior to writing their appeal statement. Whilst this could have been addressed with the Council, it is not a substantive matter in the determination of this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. The proposal does not accord with the Development Plan when it is considered as a whole. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Max Webb APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. K Taylor INSPECTOR