Agenda item

Refusal

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Northern Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell submitted the following responses to additional issues raised by the applicant’s architect;

·         The sketch showing the visibility of the cladding from the streetscene failed to take into account the wider views of the flank walls as the dwelling was situated directly opposite the junction of Exeter Road with St Gabriel’s Road. Furthermore the Article 4 direction included alterations to all elevations and did not just control elevations visible from the street.

·         The detailed drawings of the proposed window reveals were considered to have detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the building within the Conservation.

·         Detailed drawings would increase the height of the roof by 210mm and its thickness thus making it visible from the streetscene and in contrast to the uniform appearance with the 3 neighbouring dwellings on Exeter Road.

·         The architect had not provided a breakdown of the difference between internal and external insulation

·         The primary consideration for applications within a Conservation Area was the impact on the character and appearance of the building and in this instance the proposed development failed to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse.

She also referred to additional comments received from a ward member and the Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA) adding that they reinforced concerns already made.  In conclusion Rachel McConnell submitted that the proposed measures from the architect were inappropriate and unsympathetic, and reiterated the recommendation for refusal.

Ms Sheelagh Putnam on behalf of MAPRA objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse which would fail to preserve or enhance the dwelling within the Conservation Area, thus resulting in a detrimental impact on the amenity.  On the external cladding and the roof Ms Putnam stated that the proposal would also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the dwellinghouse within the streetscene adding that the difference between internal and external insulation in terms of energy savings was negligible.

Mr Nick Martin (MAPRA) speaking in a similar vein stated that the external cladding was not desirable as it would affect the character of the Conservation Area and set a precedent for similar undesirable precedents in the Conservation Area.  He added that the reduction in carbon emission in respect of external rendering should not override Conservation Area guidelines.

Mr Alexis Rowel the applicant’s agent referred to additional submissions made including a sketch on the visibility of the cladding, detailed drawings of the proposed windows and the roof eaves to support the improvements he had made to the scheme.  He then gave a breakdown of the potential energy savings attributed to the dwellinghouse and outlined the benefits and the disadvantages of the internal and external insulation. Mr Rowel urged members for more energy efficient houses through cladding as proposed.