Appeal 6007145

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 3 no. external heaters at [site address] , London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05715/FULL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as detailed in the following drawings: Site Location Plan; Block Plan; [name] ([name] with Heaters) – [name]. 202.7; [name]; [name] ([name] with Heaters) – [name]. 202.8 [name].

Appeal B is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 6 no. external wall lights at [site address] , London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/05716/FULL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as detailed in the following drawings: Site Location Plan; Block Plan; [name] ([name] with Lights), [name]. 202.3; [name]; [name] ([name] with Lights), [name]. 202.4 [name]; Luminaire Schedule, [name]. LO-2223 [name].

As set out above there are two appeals at this site; Appeal A relates to the installation of external heaters; and Appeal B relates to the installation of external lighting. I have considered each proposal on its own merits, but to avoid Appeal Decision 6007144 & 6007145 duplication I have dealt with both schemes together except where otherwise indicated.

The descriptions of development in the banner headings above have been taken from the original application forms, however, I have amended the descriptions to remove text that does not relate to acts of development.

The appeal evidence and my site visit confirms that the developments have been carried out. I have therefore considered the appeals on this basis.

Since the determination of the original applications, the Council has adopted the City Plan 2019 – 2040 (adopted 2026) (the City Plan). Main parties have had an appropriate opportunity to comment on the change in policy context.

The main issues for both Appeal A and Appeal B is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (HSCA), an area distinguished by its concentration of Georgian and Victorian buildings. The significance of the HSCA is largely derived from its historic architecture, strong relationship to the historic street pattern, and well-preserved Georgian townscape, including its characteristic grid layout and numerous listed buildings. The HSCA is generally defined by terraced townhouses arranged within a formal street network. While it retains a predominantly residential character, some differing patterns of development have resulted in distinct character areas.

[address] and the surrounding streets, including [address], form the principal commercial area of the HSCA and display a more vibrant and informal character than HSCA’s residential parts. Ground-floor premises are predominantly occupied by retail, restaurant and leisure uses, creating a varied yet cohesive streetscape of traditional and contemporary shopfronts that contributes positively to the area's high-quality townscape character.

The appeal property comprises a ground-floor restaurant within a terrace of Victorian buildings constructed in red and yellow brick. The appeal buildings display a rich architectural composition, incorporating a mix of neo-Flemish façades with red terracotta detailing alongside polychromatic brickwork and terracotta embellishments. The existing shopfront is modern but sympathetic to the host buildings and wider streetscape. As such, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the HSCA.

The external heaters are modest in scale and, owing to their position are visually unobtrusive. During my site visit, the restaurant’s awnings were lowered, with the result that the heaters were largely concealed within the streetscene and unlikely to be noticed by passers-by. Even were the awnings to be raised, the heaters’ limited size and discreet siting will ensure that they remain inconspicuous, whilst not disrupting the overall composition or competing with the architectural detailing of the host buildings. Consequently, they do not detract from the character or appearance of the host buildings or the wider streetscene. Appeal Decision 6007144 & 6007145

At the time of my site visit, the external lighting was in operation. Although several light fittings have been installed across the frontage, they are small and discrete in appearance whilst they sensitively integrate into the buildings’ frontage. External lighting is also a common feature of commercial premises in the immediate vicinity. As a result, the lighting is neither incongruous nor visually intrusive.

Taken cumulatively, the developments under [name] and B do not harm the character or appearance of the area. Rather, I find the appeal schemes are likely to enhance the vitality and vibrancy of this commercial part of the HSCA by extending the periods during which customers can utilise outdoor seating, thereby contributing positively to the area's activity and attractiveness.

The development therefore preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and accords with policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan. Together, amongst other matters, the policies seek to ensure that development positively contributes to the character and appearance of the existing area including conserving and enhancing heritage assets.

[name] Club1 ([name] listed) lies opposite the appeal site. From the evidence before me and my observations, it significance is mainly derived from its age, fine architectural detailing, as well its historic role in the area.

No. 79 [name] Street2 ([name] listed) is also located near the appeal site, at the corner of [address] and [address]. Its significance derives principally from its age and architectural quality, particularly its Victorian public house frontage, which is among the few surviving frontages predating the large-scale redevelopment of the [address].

The setting of both the above listed buildings within an area characterised by other high-quality late Victorian and Georgian development also contributes to their significance. Given my above findings, the proposal would not harm the setting of these listed buildings and therefore preserves their significance.

The heaters are wall mounted at a high level, as such, that they do not conflict with pedestrian movement or raise highway safety implications.

As the works have already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach a standard time limit condition for commencement of development. For clarity, I have attached a condition to each appeal decision specifying the approved plans.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal schemes accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that decisions should be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeals are therefore allowed.