Appeal 6000999

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to application of painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level to the host building. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to shed in rear garden together with pergola, with associated works, and planning permission is granted for shed in rear garden together with a pergola with associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01034/FUL, and the plans submitted with it so far as is relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, and subject to the schedule of conditions in [name] at the end of this decision.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to application of painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level to the host building. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works, and listed building consent is granted for shed in rear garden together with pergola with associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01615/LB, and the plans submitted with it so far as is relevant to that part of the works hereby consented, and subject to the schedule of conditions in [name] at the end of this decision.

The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter.

The appellant’s name in the banner headings above is taken from the application forms. This differs slightly from the name provided on the Council’s decision notices as [name] and the name on the appeal forms as [name]. However, I am satisfied that the applicant / appellant is one-and-the-same despite differences in the setting out of the name.

The descriptions of development and works as stated on the application forms is set out in the banner headings. The Council on its decision notices has described the development and works as the ‘Erection of a shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works. Application of painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level to the host building.’ This more accurately describes the proposals as shown on the plans. I have considered the appeal on this basis and used the revised description in my formal decision above.

The appellant requested, at question 4 of the appeal forms, that the appeals be determined by the hearing procedure. It was subsequently decided that the appeals be progressed through the written representations procedure and both parties agreed to the change in procedure.

The appeal site is a [name] listed building located within the Kennington Conservation Area (the CA). Whilst harm to the conservation area was not cited in the reasons for refusal, I, nonetheless, have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Within their supporting evidence the parties have made reference to the conservation area. Thus, no injustice will result by my consideration of the effect of the proposal on that heritage asset. I have therefore had regard to the statutory duties under sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The Council’s reason for refusal cited in both decision notices focuses on the perceived harmful effects of the proposed ‘painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level’. The Council’s officer report (which combines planning and listed building consent applications) confirms that the proposed ‘shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works’ as shown on the submitted plans is acceptable. From the evidence before me and my site visit, I have no reason to take a different view in relation to this element of the appeal schemes, and I find that the proposed shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works would preserve the special interest of the listed building and its setting and preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Therefore, my considerations below are focused solely on the effects of the proposed painted render to the upper ground floor on the front elevation to the host building.

As decision maker on behalf of the Secretary of State, I have the power to split the decisions relating to planning permission and listed building consent1. Given the 1 Planning Permission - section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in relation to appeals made under section 78 of that Act. Listed building consent - section 22(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) in relation to appeals made under section 20 of that Act. above, and that the proposed shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works is clearly severable, both physically and functionally, from the proposed painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level to the host building, I am able to issue split decisions.

The main issues of both appeals are whether the proposed painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level would preserve the [name] listed building, known as [address] SE112, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses; and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site, [site address] (No.38) is a three storey with basement residential property which, together with properties at 34, 36 and [address] (even numbers only), forms one [name] listed building entry of [address] (the LB). The LB dates from the early 19th century and is constructed from stock brick with a stepped access to the front door of each property. The properties within the LB are broadly similar in appearance, with a parapet roof and stuccoed basement lightwells fronting [address], set back behind railings.

The list entry notes there has been much rebuilding within the upper floors of the LB. Indeed, I saw at my site visit some variation in brick colour, fenestration, brick heads and fanlights on the front elevations of the component properties, including a cementitious band above the front door and ground floor window of No.38. Nonetheless, the individual properties forming the LB as a whole retain a strong sense of uniformity in their consistency of height, architecturally designed features and predominant use of brick.

On the basis of what is before me and my own observations, the special interest and significance of the LB is largely derived from its architectural and historic interests in illustrating the planned growth of this part of the city in the 19th century. Important contributors in this regard are the use of traditional methods of construction and materials; surviving historic fabric and pleasing architectural form. Despite the variations to the front elevations set out above, similarities in their overall historic and architectural composition are still legible. For these reasons, No.[address] to the special interest and significance of the LB as a designated heritage asset.

Pertinent to the appeals, special interest and significance is also derived from the LB’s setting at the western end of a long terrace that flanks the southern side of [address]. Due to the physical connection, similarities in age and appearance between the LB and the rest of the terrace, it is viewed as one uninterrupted row. This row makes a valuable contribution to the harmonious composition of the wider townscape, emphasising its group value as an integral element of a wider group of historic buildings that surround [address], an important feature of the CA.

Whilst the CA is mixed in character as a whole, it includes many period residential terraces. Some industrial buildings and uses remain in the CA’s south-west corner, 2 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1080481 the main roads dissecting the CA include commercial premises and there are some 20th century designed residential blocks. [address] sits in the eastern part of the CA. It is a historically designed open space surrounded by grand three storey late 18th and early 19th century terraced properties, including the appeal building, as well as a public house. From my observations, it provides a valued open space and oasis of quiet between the busy Kennington Park Road and the junction of [address] and [address]. Not all properties on each of the terraces fronting [address] include the same detailing. Some include stucco to front elevations. However, their age, form, height, proximity to the street and overwhelming use of brick provide, insofar as it relates to this scheme, a recognisable consistency and aesthetic value to the area’s character and appearance. As such, I find the special interest and significance of the CA is derived, in part, from the historically planned and architecturally detailed terraces, spaces and streets.

The relationship between the formal terraced row of townhouses within which No.[address] is a key element that positively contributes to the historic development of the cityscape and to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The proposed ‘painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level’ (proposed render) would extend upwards from the existing stucco at lower ground floor level of No.38, to the bottom of the first-floor windows, across the full width of the property.

It is argued by the appellant that the proposed render would reinstate stucco that was previously applied to the upper ground floor front elevation of No.38. However, there is no evidence before me that stucco is a historic element of the LB. Indeed, given no other properties forming the LB have stucco on their upper ground floors, it is highly unlikely that it is a historic feature.

Even so, very small patches of previously applied render are visibly apparent around the edges of the upper ground floor of No.38, and brickwork has been stripped and cleaned in this area. Given the mix of brick and varied bonding used here, it is clear that this part of the front elevation has been altered at some point in the past. Further evidence of this also includes the loss of an arched fanlight and brick arches above the front door and ground floor window which area characteristic of the rest of the LB. In their place is a rectangular fanlight and stretching across the frontage of No.38 is an uncharacteristic cementitious covered timber lintel.

I acknowledge the above alterations result in a noticeably different appearance to the front elevation of No.38 in comparison to the other properties within the LB. A more consistent external finish and reinstatement of historic features could in principle enhance the appearance of the LB. I also recognise that the timber lintel may require protection from water penetration and decay and that its complete removal and the reinstatement of the upper ground floor structure in brick with a more consistent appearance with the rest of the LB would be likely to require extensive structural works.

I saw that there is already some variation in brick colour within the LB’s front elevation as a whole. For example, the colour of brickwork at No.40 differs between the upper ground floor level and the first and second floors; at No.36, brickwork at second floor level is lighter than the rest of the front elevation; and at No.34, brickwork at first and second floor level is markedly different to that on the upper ground floor. Therefore, although the appearance of the rendered timber lintel is regrettable, that the brickwork does not exactly match the rest of the front elevation is not in itself overly harmful to the special interest of the LB. It is the uniformity derived from the use of brick, albeit with different patinas, that is a key positive contributor to the significance of the LB.

Even if render previously existed at the upper ground floor level of No.38 at some point in the past, it does not exist now. Despite its altered frontage, the proposed render would clearly dominate the more subdued and uniform brick frontage of the LB as a whole and unbalance the existing relationship between the component properties within it.

Furthermore, there is a notable deficiency of detail regarding the composition of the proposed render, how it would adhere to the existing brickwork and how it would be finished. [name] note the appellant’s evidence includes specialist advice3 that a lime-based render with the addition of Bath or Portland stone dust should be used and either left as render or painted with a mineral of clay-based paint, no detailed methodology has been provided. As the detailed make-up and application of the proposed render, a physical intervention to the building’s structure, is not entirely clear, I cannot be certain of its final appearance. Nor can I be sure that there would not be some detriment caused to the strength or integrity of the building’s structure. This omission is a deficiency and restricts a full understanding of the proposal and its effects. Moreover, given the listed status of the building, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate or acceptable to leave such important matters to be dealt with by conditions.

Consequently, the proposed render to the upper ground floor would be a more harmful alteration to the LB as a whole than that which presently exists. It would fundamentally and harmfully alter the muted simplicity and authenticity of the brick façade of the LB and diminish its historic interest, thereby impairing its historic legibility. As such, there would be harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. This would in turn, diminish the positive contribution that the LB makes to the appearance of the wider terrace.

Although my attention has been drawn to other nearby properties which have render to upper ground floor elevations, notably, [address] and [address] and [address], I have not been provided with the specific circumstances of these individual examples. I do note however that none form part of the same LB before me and that they are not the predominant material used on the front elevations of properties surrounding [address], which are overwhelmingly brick. These examples also demonstrate the harmful visual effect arising from the introduction of starkly contrasting materials on a prominent elevation where such contrast interrupts the prevailing uniformity of the terrace.

Drawing all of the above together, I find that the proposed painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level would fail to preserve the [name] listed building, [address] SE11, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. This would be contrary to the requirements of 3 Appendix 1 of appellant’s Planning, heritage and design statement, version 2.0, dated 1 May 2025. sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act. As a result, there would be harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

These harmful effects would feed through to the character and appearance of the CA. The adverse visual effect of the proposed render on this LB would lessen the positive contribution that it makes to the character and appearance of the wider terrace and the CA as a whole, as well as reduce the ability to appreciate that significance.

In finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) require the category of harm to be explicitly identified, and the extent of harm within that category to be clearly articulated. Given the nature and extent of the proposed render, I find that the harm to the significance of the LB would be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. Nonetheless, this harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits4 of the proposal, which includes, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

No public benefits have been put forward by the appellant. I find public benefits that would ‘flow from’ the development and works associated with the proposed rendering would be limited to the economic benefits in the production and application of the render.

It is stated by the appellant that the proposed render would protect the existing timber lintel, but it has not been demonstrated that the proposed render would offer any more protection than the existing render. Neither has it been demonstrated that any alternative options were investigated to conclude that the proposed render of the upper ground floor would be the least harmful to the significance of the designated heritage asset. This would not therefore be a heritage benefit. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided which verifies that this element is necessary to secure the residential use of the LB.

I find clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Overall, the weight I ascribe to the public benefits which would flow from the proposed render is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm I have found.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed ‘painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level’ would not preserve the [name] listed building, known as [address] SE11, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. It would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

Consequently, it would conflict with the statutory requirements of the Act and would conflict with Policies Q5, Q8, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, adopted September 2021 (LLP), in so far as they seek, amongst other things, development that is visually attractive, makes a positive contribution to its local and historic context and would not harm the significance of a listed building or 4 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 18a-[phone]. conservation area. There would also be conflict with the provisions of the [name] 4:Building Alterations, Extensions and Retrofit, August 2023, insofar as it seeks to ensure that all alterations positively respond to the host building; and conflict with those provisions of Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

Despite my findings in relation to the painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level, the split decision in favour of the shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works requires conditions be imposed. The Council has submitted suggested conditions were the appeals to be allowed. I have considered these having regard to the advice set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and PPG5 and made some amendments to the wording.

For Appeal A and Appeal B, planning permission and listed building consent are granted subject to the standard three year time limit conditions. For Appeal A, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans and documents as this provides certainty. For Appeal B, a condition specifying the relevant plans and documents is not necessary, as adherence to the plans which accompany a listed building consent is part of the formal decision. The Council’s suggested conditions for both appeals in relation to materials is not necessary since the details of materials are specified on the approved plans (insofar as they relate to the allowed part of the development and works).

Appeal A: For the reasons given above that the aspect of the proposal concerning the painted render to the front elevation at upper ground floor level would conflict with the LLP and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. However, I have found that the proposed shed in rear garden together with a pergola, with associated works would accord with the LLP. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with: • Drawing ref: PP-13904823v1 – Location Plan. • Drawing refs: Proposed section, Proposed side elevation, Proposed plan view, Proposed front elevation (all drawings of the shed and pergola) Appeal B Ref: 6001000

The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than three years from the date of this consent.