Appeal 3330517

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposals on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and Conservation Area.

[address] is a leafy residential street characterised by large villas set in generous plots and set behind substantial front gardens, which also provide off-street parking. Some properties have been subject to alterations, particularly those which have been subdivided into flats or have other uses.

No. 30 is an unlisted detached, 3 storey villa, which forms part of a group with the same design along this part of the street. Each share the same characteristics within their principal elevations, including double bay windows, a single large dormer window, decorative brick courses, enclosed porches, substantial chimneys and in some cases, parapet wall details. There appears to be minor differences in the use of facing materials, some more recent alterations such as rooflights and small decorative details. The appellant states that these villas are not identical and I agree, but they are of the same overall design (and at least one is ‘handed’ or a mirror image of the others). The group make a positive contribution to their setting and the wider Ealing Green Conservation Area within which they are located because of their similarities.

The Ealing Green Conservation Area which is protected under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘The Act’). I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. This is also reinforced by Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where decision takers must apply great weight to the preservation of the significance of such heritage assets.

The Ealing Green Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) (CAA) at Sub Area No 2 ([address]) explains that its significance is as follows ‘[address] was first built up during the 1860s on part of the [address] estate. Many of the grand Victorian houses are still standing - although most have been converted into flats and bed-sits.’ Further, it states that ‘Immediately west of the [name], the character and architectural language go back to the Victorian, residential properties that characterise the rest of the street.’

On page 10 of the accompanying Ealing Green Conservation Area Management Plan (2008) (EAMP), it states that ‘Roof extensions should be built within the existing roof slope: they should not be wrapped around two roof slopes, exceed the height of the ridge, or form a continuation of the wall below. Changing a hipped roof to a gable should be avoided.’ This is also echoed in the Generic Management Plan for Conservation Areas (2023) which states that ‘changing a hipped roof to a gable will not be permitted as a general rule’.

Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and policy D4 (Delivering good design) both seek good design in all new development. Policy HC1 (Heritage conservation and growth) of the LP requires that development affecting heritage assets should conserve their significance and sense of place.

Policy 7B ([name]) of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) (DMDPD) seeks high standards of amenity to be achieved through design. Policy LV7.4 (Local Character) of the DMDPD supports development proposals that complement their surroundings, particularly in terms of street sequence, building pattern, scale, materials, and detailing.

The council have a Housing Design Guidance (2022) supplementary planning document (SPD) which provides guidance for the design of new and alterations to existing dwellings in the Borough.

Given the general uniformity of the design in the group of properties along this stretch of [address], which includes No. 30, and the positive contribution they make to the Conservation Area, I consider the addition of the hip to gable roof would result in a harmful imbalance in this uniformity. The resulting effect on the roof profile would be readily visible from the public domain and this would in turn harm the character of the host dwelling and street scene. The council have stated that they consider the harm to Conservation Area would be less than substantial, and I agree.

I note from the appellant’s case that the proposed design form, which would result in two gable ends, is ‘a traditional feature and common place on period properties so the inclusion of this small gable section would reflect the style of property, whilst the linear design of the ridge being seamlessly continued represents the correct design approach for such an alteration’. I agree that it is a common feature on properties of the same age, but a complete gable end roof design does not feature on this particular group of properties.

It is this repetition that I consider is most important to retain, because where alterations to the principal elevations take place over time, there is a strong likelihood that the group ‘value’ of the properties (and their contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area) would be, in my view, lost.

I therefore consider that the appeal proposals would fail to align with policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the LP, policies 7B and 7.4 of the DMDPD, the Ealing Housing Design Guidance (2022), the CAA, EAMP and Generic Management Plan for Conservation Areas (2023) and the relevant parts of the Framework.

For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.