Appeal 6008165

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the erection of two wall mounted electric heaters.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the four wall lamps and planning permission is granted for the erection of four wall lamps at 40-42 Sahara, [address], City of Westminster, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/06933/FULL, and the plans submitted with it.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council issued a decision setting out that advertisement consent was not required for the non-illuminated fascia signage and projecting sign at the appeal site. For this reason, these elements of the proposal have not formed part of my assessment of the appeal.

The two awnings already installed at the appeal site were added to the description of development by the Council but were not part of the appellant’s application. The appellant has indicated that planning permission was previously granted in February 2025 for their installation. For this reason, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the awnings do not form part of the proposal before me.

The wall lamps that have been installed at the appeal site appear to be in accordance with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that this part of the development has already taken place. However, no heaters had been installed at the time of my visit.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Portman Estate Conservation Area.

As the Portman Estate Conservation Area Audit (2003) (the Audit) sets out, the Portman Estate Conservation Area derives considerable significance from the harmonious rhythm generated by coherent blocks of historic terraced buildings. Whilst of later design than the prevailing late eighteenth century architecture of the area, the terraced buildings of [address] contribute significantly to local character. Buildings are almost entirely consistent in their appearance above the ground floor commercial units, with the repeated design of terracotta detailing, fenestration and gable roofs establishing a steady rhythm along the street.

The Audit identifies that shopfronts can be of historic and architectural interest in their own right, making explicit reference to the original shopfronts and surround details along [address] as good examples of historic shopfronts which are not listed. Shopfronts along [address] are primarily defined by their traditional appearance, with particular reference to their original pilasters. With both the shopfront and upper stories of the appeal site exhibiting the above characteristic features, I consider that the building makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Portman Estate Conservation Area.

The wall lamps at the appeal site have been installed adjacent to each pilaster. Their modest scale ensures that their physical appearance does not appear unduly prominent next to these characteristic features. Although white lamps as indicated in some submissions may have more effectively blended in with the white of the pilasters, the silver colour of the installed wall lamps still ensures that they have a discreet appearance.

In most instances, the exterior of shopfronts along [address] are non-illuminated and shop displays are typically illuminated from within the shopfront. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the illumination of the external wall lamps would not be prominent within the context of the street, on account of their modest scale and proposed luminance. This would be true even outside of hours of operation of the restaurant given the presence of street lighting along [address]. For these reasons, the physical appearance of the wall lamps does not, and the proposed illumination would not, harm the character and appearance of the area, including the Portman Estate Conservation Area.

The elevation plans show that the two wall mounted heaters proposed would sit beneath the awnings and hang downward in front of the shopfront window. Given their size, this arrangement would result in the heaters being unduly prominent in relation to the shopfront. For this reason, the heaters would be far more noticeable than the much smaller lamps, and would be out of character with, and detract from, the traditional appearance of shopfronts along [address].

I have noted the appellant’s comment that, when extended, the awnings would visually obscure the appearance of the heaters. However, the heaters would still be visible when approaching from the side, along the pavement. Furthermore, whilst the appellant has indicated that there is no condition on the planning permission for the awnings specifying that they have to be drawn back, I have equally not been made aware of any condition requiring that they must be extended. For this reason, although the appellant’s intention is for the awnings to remain open at all times, I cannot be certain of this. Therefore, the proposed heaters would harm the character and appearance of the area and the Conservation Area.

I have been directed by the appellant to examples of outdoor heaters that have been installed at commercial units nearby. However, I have not been provided evidence of how these came to be installed. Even if these examples of heaters benefit from permission, they do not justify the prominence of the proposed heaters within the context of the appeal site.

In accordance with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. For the reasons above, the proposed heaters would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the heritage asset and would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Portman Estate Conservation Area as a whole. While the degree of harm would be at the lower end of the scale, given that it would apply to only one shopfront in the street, I nevertheless afford this harm considerable weight and importance.

In such circumstances, paragraph 208 of the Framework states that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The appellant has indicated that, by providing customers with comfort when eating in the seating area outside the restaurant, the proposed heaters would meet the objectives of select paragraphs of the Framework in being of benefit to the local community. However, such benefits would be small and the pavement licence obtained for the outdoor seating area runs for only a temporary period. Therefore, these benefits carry very little weight. For this reason, there are no public benefits associated with the proposal of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm.

Therefore, the proposed wall mounted electric heaters would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the Portman Estate Conservation Area. Consequently, they would fail to comply with Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (adopted 2026), in so far as they expect development proposals to have regard to the character and appearance of the existing area. Therefore, in this respect, the appeal is dismissed.

The wall lamps, however, do not and would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the Portman Estate Conservation Area and as such comply with the relevant policies of the development plan. They are clearly physically separate from the proposed heaters and severable from that part of the development. Therefore, I can recommend a split decision that this element of the appeal scheme be allowed. As the lamps are already in place, no conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the wall lamps, and is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed wall mounted electric heaters.