Appeal 6005563

The appeal is dismissed.

The front porch is already in place and I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] (Haymills) Conservation Area (‘the HHCA’).

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) states that great weight shall be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, such as conservation areas, and that harm to their significance requires clear and convincing justification.

[address] (Haymills) Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2008 sets out that the estate is notable for its mix of architectural styles, as well as the overall quality of the house design and landscaping. This includes many houses attributed to the moderne movement, which typically display features such as metal windows, streamlined and curved shapes, and distinctive brick or concrete bands, which help give the buildings a horizontal emphasis.

I understand that prior to the implementation of the porch, the host property had a slightly projecting concrete band on its front elevation, which ran in a continuous line just above and either side of its front door. From my site observations and from Appeal Decision: 6005563 the evidence before me, such bands are a significant and defining feature of houses in this part of the HHCA, with nearly all nearby houses displaying them.

Whilst the porch is small in scale compared to the house as a whole, given its siting on the front elevation and its pent roof, it has significantly interrupted the host’s prominent and characteristic white painted concrete band. Its style and its front projection fail to respect the original design, and it has resulted in the loss of significant architectural detailing in the form of an original curved canopy which I understand was formerly above the front door.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other development in [address], but Nos 37 and 47 have typical, simple flat-roofed, open-sided canopies over their front doors which do not significantly interrupt the horizontal banding and emphasis on their front elevations. Unlike this scheme No 39’s flat roofed porch aligns with that property’s horizontal band. I did observe a large porch with a pent roof at No 42 and some other enclosed porches nearby, including No 43, but they are not typical of the area. Additionally, I cannot be certain how those properties appeared before those porches were installed, nor what the Council’s policies and guidance were at that time.

In harming this typical moderne style property, the scheme has harmed the character and appearance of the conservation area as a whole. It therefore conflicts with Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021 (‘LP’), which requires proposals to conserve the significance of heritage assets; and with Policy 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (‘EDMD’) which sets out that development in conservation areas shall retain and enhance characteristic features and detailing, and should not undermine the conservation area’s significance.

It also conflicts with the requirements for high quality design, which complements existing detailing and local distinctiveness, in [name] 7B and 7.4, and [name] D3 and D4; along with the broadly similar stance on high quality design which reflects local character and context in the Ealing Design Guidance 2022 and in Policy DAA of the emerging Ealing Draft Local Plan.

In accordance with the Framework, I have given great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Whilst the harm caused to the HHCA is less than substantial, having regard to Framework paragraph 215, there are no public benefits such as to outweigh that harm, and the scheme therefore also conflicts with national policy.

The scheme conflicts with the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.