Appeal 6003115

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form but I have excluded superfluous information that is not an act of development.

As part of Council’s assessment, the existing door is described as a four panel Dublin groove door, and its site photos shows a four-panel door painted blue, and which appears to be hinged at one side. However, in section 9 of the application form the appellant describes the existing door as “wood (type unknown), pink paint, [name] which is split down the middle”. Furthermore, in their initial statement the appellant describes the existing door as a door “which opens in the centre”, and in their final comments they seek to ensure the correct door has been considered and once again refer to the existing door as being “pink and split down the middle”. Having carefully considered this evidence, it appears that the Council has referred to the wrong door at the property when assessing the proposal. I acknowledge that the absence of detailed plans and drawings as part of the original submission has likely contributed to this confusion.

For the avoidance of doubt, my consideration of the appeal is based on the existing door as described by the appellant in their original submission. This is a set of French style doors that are painted pink, located to the right of the four panel Dublin groove door, and set back in elevation.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brownswood Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a three storey, end terrace dwelling situated at the junction of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character. The appeal site is within the Brownswood Conservation Area (the BCA).

The significance of BCA lies in it being a high quality late Victorian suburb with a clear hierarchy of housing types set out from the 1860s onwards. The Brownswood Conservation Area Appraisal states that buildings are adorned with detailed decorative architectural features which greatly enriches the overall character and appearance of the area. The common architectural characteristics and unaltered features give strong architectural cohesion, and the buildings have notable group value.

The appeal site is an example of a traditional dwelling which are typically constructed in yellow stock brick with red brick banding at window level and feature a recessed one and a half storey link element between each pair, contributing to the uniformity and rhythm of the streetscape. The Council also state that the significance of the appeal building is due to its prominent position at the junction of [address] and [address].

The proposal seeks to replace the existing external door, which is described as being a wooden, French-style centrally opening door, which is pink in colour. However, the appellant’s submission is absent of any scaled cross-sectional drawings of the existing or proposed door or any appropriately scaled elevational drawings that would illustrate exactly how the replacement door would appear in situ. Some limited illustrative details and specifications have been provided in the form of extracts from a manufacturer’s brochure. However, this information shows several different specifications, creating significant doubt over what door design is proposed. Furthermore, the only submitted plan shows two doors of different designs.

It is imperative that proposals are accompanied by appropriately scaled drawings and specifications of sufficient detail to illustrate and/or describe the development in order to avoid any uncertainty over the extent of what is proposed, and to allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects. Irrespective of my views over the merits of the case, the lack of drawings and a detailed specification for the proposed replacement door casts significant doubt over the dimensions, composition, glazing arrangement, positioning, and subsequent appearance. This is highly undesirable in general terms but especially given that the appeal site falls within a conservation area, where great weight is given to the conservation of this designated heritage asset.

Even if I were to accept the appellant’s contentions that the existing door is not as secure as a solid wooden door, nor does it retain heat, the information provided in relation to the detail of the replacement door is wholly deficient and ambiguous. This severely limits the ability to make a valid and meaningful assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development.

Furthermore, Paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by a proposal. It goes on to advise that this should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and sufficient to understand the potential impact of a proposal on its significance when assessed using appropriate expertise. In this case, no such assessment has been undertaken, and insufficient information has therefore been provided to determine the effect of the proposal on the significance of the designated heritage asset. This in itself is a reason to dismiss the appeal. Indeed, given the poor quality and overall deficiencies of the appellant’s submission, it is difficult to see how the planning application was ever considered to be valid.

Taking the above points together, and mindful of the duty arising from Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I cannot be certain that the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA. Nor can I reasonably draw any conclusions against Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies LP1 and Policy LP3 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033, adopted July 2020 which seek amongst other things, to ensure development responds to local character and context and conserves the significance of heritage assets.

In coming to my decision, I have considered whether conditions controlling the details and specifications of the proposed replacement door could overcome the lack of information in the event that the appeal was to be allowed. However, given the substance of the proposal, this would in effect only serve to defer the decision on the proposal, and so it would be unacceptable to leave this substantive matter to be dealt with by conditions

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.