4.1. The officer gave an illustrative presentation on the proposed application of the construction of two storey plus basement side extension at 46 Jerningham Road SE14, together with associated alterations to side boundary wall.
4.2. The key considerations were Principle of Development; Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets; and Impact on Neighbouring Amenity. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.
4.3. It was asked why the windows do not match style of adjoining building. It was responded that because of the contemporary design of the proposed construction, they have taken the same approach to windows. There were some revisions to windows on ground floor- they were reduced in size and they better reflect the bay window in terms of proportions.
4.4. The agent for the application was invited to speak. Their main points were: the additional space is for a growing family and the objective is to make sufficient use of the land; combined with the context of bond damage, resulting in poor quality architecture within the location, this would be an opportunity for enhancement to conservation area; the proposal is a contemporary addition to the unique features of Telegraph Hill; they have substantially reduced scale of proposals, responding positively to the advice; it is a high quality design; the main view along Jerningham Road would be maintained; there are significant greening and biodiversity enhancements, with 4 new trees that will eventually mature and replace the one tree lost during a storm some years ago; and the additional floor space will allow family to live in property for a long time.
4.5. They added that it was not possible to replicate the Victorian design. An attempt at this would result in a contrived design which would dilute the special interest in the host dwelling and its contribution to the conservation area. The applicant is willing to construct the building in a Flemish bond as proposed by the Telegraph Hill Society.
4.6. The objector gave their presentation. Their main points were:
The frontage loses garden space; the replanting does not compensate for what is being lost on the corner; and the bay window will be visible.
They stated that it was a wholly unnecessary destruction of the heritage of the area and emphasised that it is possible to keep Victorian design as opposed to the contemporary design proposed.
4.7. Members wanted clarity on whether the contemporary design was necessary. The presenting officer stated that the contemporary design was allowed in conservation areas and as an extension to the existing building, it can connect the contrast between the new and old aspects and further strengthen the design of the older building. The original construction with its materials could not be replicated.
The Presiding Officer added that officers are not recommending that Members approve the application because of the contemporary scheme. He said that the Telegraph Hill Society’s point that you cannot produce something that is traditional in its design is not a reason to bring all contemporary designs is correct. However, it is disagreed that the policies are such that traditional forms of architecture should be sought after – policies and guidance are such that it is possible to achieve high quality contemporary schemes, that do not harm the conservation area.
4.8. It was MOVED and SECONDED to approve the application subject to all conditions set out in the report. The Member vote was split so the Chair gave the casting vote in favour of the application and the Committee RESOLVED to approve the application.