Agenda item

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the Installation of external insulation with brick slip finish to the elevations that are facing the recently approved single storey rear extension and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the southern elevation of the house of 49 Pepys Road, SE14, together with alterations to the eaves and window sills, subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.

4.1      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the installation of external insulation with brick slip finish to the elevations that were facing the recently approved single storey rear extension and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the southern elevation of the house of 49 Pepys Road, SE14, together with alterations to the eaves and window sills.

4.2       The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·Principle of Development

· Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets

· Impact on Adjoining Properties

4.3      The applicant said that the application had been made to improve the energy efficiency and ­sustainably of their family home. They were committed to living in a manner that reduced waste and energy consumption whilst respecting and valuing built environment heritage assets. He raised the following points in support of his application:

·      Architects had been appointed who had a strong record of providing good quality new and eco-retrofit housing, linked to the best possible ecological and sustainable construction techniques.

·      Reducing the use of fossil fuels and making progress towards net-zero carbon emissions over the next 20 years was recognised by the government as essential and this was supported by Lewisham’s stated policy of being carbon-neutral by 2030.

·      The proposal sought to take modest steps towards this by insulating the elevations facing the new extension approved in 2021 and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the south elevation of the house. The front, rear and the return to the first chimney breast would remain untouched so that the appearance from the street would be largely unchanged. As part of this, the eaves of the flank wall would be amended. Window sills and heads would be pulled forward to match the existing. This programme of works to the house would deliver the best possible living environment and lower energy consumption for its occupants.

·      All of this work would incorporate the highest quality materials and the design had been crafted to be appropriate to its context. A MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery) system would be installed, which would maintain appropriate moisture levels throughout the house

·      Conscious of the conservation area setting and informed by the surrounding historic environment, the finer detail of the proposal was developed following detailed pre-application advice from the LPA’s officers. This constructive input was reflected in the use of material with particular attention to ensure the existing building fabric would be maintained to a high standard. A Heritage Statement had been undertaken and a proportionate assessment of the significance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area and the impact of the proposed scheme upon that significance.

4.4       In response to questions asked, members were advised that:

·      The guarantee for the external wall installation was 25 years.

·      An air source heat pump would be installed if the building could be insulated sufficiently.

·      Internal insulation measures had been considered to the front and rear of the property. The risk of intersectional condensation was higher with internal insulation, and since the property had wooden floors the risk of rot was higher.

4.5       The Chair of the Telegraph Hill Society then addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He raised the following points.

·           The objection was based on policy; the trade-off, in a conservation area, between the insulation of a house and the preservation of the borough’s heritage.

·           Conservation societies hoped that the planning department would have had a wider consultation and agreed a general approach on this issue before any specific applications of this nature were received. This had not happened.

·           It was appreciated that the applicant had attempted to retain the external appearance but the original building would be damaged.

·            The property was one of an identical pair in the road. If the application was approved it would remove the uniformity of design. It was considered that the changes were contrary to Development Policy 36B4.

·           The conservation societies did not object to most of the work on the new build and the works that were not visible which would create most of the savings that the applicant wanted, without attacking the visible parts of the property. A householder should accept some obligations when buying a property in a conservation area, understanding that a Victorian property would be colder than a modern house.

·           The Council should consider the convenience of an applicant against the public harm. The granting of this application would increase the number of homes with a fake façade. The application did not form enough public benefit to outweigh the public harm.

·           If not rejected, the application should be deferred to review the wider implications so the authority could seek expertise as to whether redevelopment was appropriate.

4.6       The Planning Officer said that every application was assessed on its own merits, so if this application was approved it would not set a precedent for future applications. The application was considered suitable because the applicant had provided substantial evidence which showed the wider public benefits. If another application for external wall insulation was received without evidence, approval might not be recommended. The officer did not recommend deferral of the decision because a decision should not be suspended to allow further guidance to be established within the Council[RD1] . Applications had to be assessed as they were received. It was considered that the applicant had provided enough evidence and information for it to be recommend for approval.

4.7       The Committee considered written submissions and the submissions made at the meeting and with one abstention, it was:

          RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the Installation of externainsulation with brick slip finish to the elevations that were facing the recently approved single storey rear extension and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the southern elevation of the house of 49 Pepys Road, SE14, together with alterations to the eaves and window sills, subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.