PLANNING COMMITTEE 22nd June 2017

John Cooney e-mail: john.cooney@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2017/0969 01385/37/P3

BWR/2016/00718

Address: 37 Chiswick Quay, Chiswick, W4 3UR

Proposal: Retrospective application for erection of a detached wooden pergola in the rear garden.

Application received: 06/03/2017

The application has been referred to planning committee by Councillor Hearn

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The structure was erected in October 2016.

1.2 The proposal is considered unacceptable as it would harm the character and appearance of the Chiswick Quay estate and wider Grove Park Conservation Area, and would also harm the living conditions of immediate neighbours.

1.3 Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission is refused and an enforcement notice be served seeking removal of the structure.

2.0 RELEVANT FACTS - SITE AND CONTEXT

2.1 Chiswick Quay is a small estate of 68 town houses surrounding a marina on the river Thames. Each house overlooks either the marina or the river. The roads on the estate, Chiswick Quay and Ibis Lane, are both cul-de-sacs accessed from Hartington Road.

2.2 Chiswick Quay was developed in 1974 around a lake and its banks which, like much of the rest of the Grove Park Conservation Area, was originally part of Lord Burlington's Chiswick House estate, but later owned by the Dukes of Devonshire. It is relatively unique in Chiswick in that it is architecturally post-modern, as opposed to the general Victorian/Edwardian Chiswick style. The houses were designed in a straight-forward contemporary style.

2.3 The houses are laid out in terraces, set back from the footpath giving space for front gardens and off-street parking. Variety and interest comes from the staggered layout, varied roof levels and different surface finishes.

2.4 The site is in Grove Park Conservation Area, the Thames Policy Area, and forms part of the Thameside Panorama when viewed from Chiswick Bridge, to the south-east.

2.5 The Estate is identified in the Grove Park Conservation Area as being of exceptionally high quality for its time and of equally high architectural merit as its older neighbours. Its design is considered to be sympathetic in scale, character, quality and forms part of the later history of the Grove Park area.

2.6 The low-lying openness of the area exaggerates the proximity of the Thames and the detail of the buildings.

2.7 Chiswick Quay is subject to restrictions on its permitted development rights, under Condition 9 of planning permission 00567/A/P19 dated 20/06/1972, which states “No fences, walls, buildings or structures shall be erected on the site (except those indicated in detail on the submitted drawings) without express permission in writing granted by the Local Planning Authority”.

3.0 Relevant History

3.1 01385/37/P1 Removal of rear projecting section of roof slope and associated brickwork, insertion of a new window and creation of a full width roof terrace.

Refused 20/06/2008

Reasons:

Inappropriate design, size, and scale would harm the building and the Grove Park Conservation Area

Inappropriate design, size, scale, and location would harm the site when viewed from the Thames and immediate and opposite foreshore.

Appeal Dismissed 06/05/2009

Under the dismissal appeal decision, the Inspector

concluded that:

“The Chiswick Quay development has a rhythm and a co-ordinated style that relies on the integrity and completeness of the individual dwelling units to give the whole development its distinctive character.”

“My impression was that the estate remains virtually unaltered since construction with any minor changes, such as rooflights, sun blinds, pergolas or the conversion of a garage to living accommodation being ephemeral and not affecting the basic physical structure and character of the estate.”

“I consider that the work proposed would significantly change the rhythm and style of the dwelling and terrace. It would create a visually intrusive and uncharacteristic feature which would be at odds with the original design concept of the area.”

“I recognise that from Chiswick Bridge, the view of Chiswick Quay is distant and oblique… However, the river and both banks of the Thames are accessible as public routes, including a route immediately between the Chiswick Quay development and the river. The proposed works would clearly be seen from these routes and, in my view, be recognised as an incongruous and harmful feature which I consider would be to the detriment of the integrity and quality of the development as a whole and views of it from those various public routes.”

3.2 01385/37LAW1 Certificate of Lawful Development for a proposed ground floor extension

Refused 19/11/2009

Reason: The property is subject to removal of permitted development rights.

Appeal Dismissed 30/11/2010

3.3 01385/37/P2 Erection of a uPVC conservatory at the rear of the property in a conservation area.

Refused 27/07/2012

Reasons:

Inappropriate design, materials and scale, would harm the appearance of the building and the character and appearance of the Grove Park Conservation Area

Inappropriate design, size, scale, and location within the site, would harm the site when viewed from the Thames and immediate and opposite foreshore.

Appeal Dismissed 04/01/2013

Under the dismissal appeal decision for 01385/37/P2,

the Inspector concluded that:

“The basic physical components of the buildings which contribute in large measure to the special character of the estate have mostly been retained in their original form, much as the designers of the development conceived it.”

“My attention has been drawn to the works that have been carried out to the rear of No 36 Chiswick Quay by way of hard landscaping, paving and the introduction of ornamental features into the garden area which was previously laid to grass. However, being at low level, these features do not alter the appearance of the terrace of houses in the same way and to the same extent as the construction of an addition to the building would because of its scale and height.”

“The erection of the conservatory in the manner proposed would have the effect of introducing an unacceptable form of addition to the property which would materially alter the design concept of the development in an adverse fashion. It is the rhythm and the careful attention to the spatial separation and detail to the layout and arrangement of the individual houses forming the terrace from which its character when viewed from the river corridor largely derives.”

“Whilst I accept that the development would be inconspicuous if visible at all from long range viewpoints, for instance when standing on Chiswick Bridge or from positions on the opposite bank of the river, the conservatory would be readily seen over shorter distances from locations close to the river, or from the river itself. For instance, from the public footpath running alongside the river, and despite its lower level, the conservatory would be plainly visible.”

“The development would have a significant and harmful effect on the terrace through its visual intrusiveness and incongruity. In my conclusion the aesthetic integrity of the terrace when seen from the south is of such importance that the buildings within it which contribute to its appearance are worthy of preservation in their original form.”

“The development would be perceived as a visually jarring addition to the terrace which would compromise the design ethic of the development in an unacceptable way. The quality and integrity of the appearance and character of the terrace would be materially reduced. If the conservatory were to be erected as proposed, rather than experiencing a view of the terrace as a whole as an interesting and unique development of its type occupying a prime location adjacent to the river, the eye

would inevitably be drawn to the single feature which appeared out of place and in conflict with the original design concept which has so far been kept intact.”

3.4 BWR/2016/00718 Planning Enforcement Case:

Erection of pergola.

Complaint received 27/10/2016 – Case Pending

Note: 41 Chiswick Quay is also subject to a pending planning enforcement case regarding the erection of a pergola (Ref: BWR/2016/00719).

3.5 Neighbouring properties and their relevant features:

What are they and where? 36 Chiswick Quay – adjoined to north-west

38 Chiswick Quay – adjoined to south-east

Extensions None

Boundary Treatment Low hedges and fences approximately 1.2 metres high.

Design Similar to subject property

4.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

Element 1: Rear Garden Pergola

4.1 Design

Timber pergola structure fixed to existing timber decking with four supporting posts.

Two roof beams along width of structure and seven roof beams along depth of structure.

Covered in green plastic ivy and flashing lights.

Intention to introduce vines and plants to cover cross beams.

4.2 Dimensions

2.93m (depth) x 3.60m (width) x 2.40m (height)

Set 1.45m from recessed rear wall and 0.55m from outer rear wall of application property.

0.30m set in from south-east side boundary.

Protrudes 2.33m beyond rear wall of house to south-east.

2.80m set in from north-west side boundary.

4.3 Materials

Timber

Net increase in floor area: N/A

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The current application resulted from a complaint which was made to planning enforcement on 27/10/2016 regarding the erection of rear garden pergolas at both 37 and 41 Chiswick Quay.

5.2 Five neighbouring residents were notified of the planning application on 08/03/2017. A site notice was displayed outside of the property on 17/03/2017. A press notice advertised the application on 17/03/2017.

5.3 In total, 50 Comments were received, which included 34 letters of support and 16 objections.

5.4 Of 43 comments which specified an address, only 19 originated within the London Borough of Hounslow – 14 of these local comments objected and 5 local comments supported the proposal.

5.5 The objections are summarised as follows:

Objection Comment

The design and materials, including timber frame, artificial plastic leaves and flashing fairy lights, are inappropriate.

See paragraph 7.12

The pergola is too large for the garden. See paragraphs 7.7 - 7.14

The pergola is harmful to the character of the estate, and its visual appearance from the north and south banks of the Thames.

See paragraphs 7.7 - 7.14

The pergola would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area

See paragraphs 7.7 - 7.12

The approval of the application would set a precedent for various garden structures which would harm the character and architectural unity of the riverside estate.

See paragraph 7.10

The structure contravenes the regulations and covenants of Chiswick Quay relating to views and line of sight.

Covenants are not a planning matter, however permitted development rights are restricted within Chiswick Quay, and

neighbour outlook is a planning consideration.

The erection of the pergola could be an attempt to circumvent the planning restrictions on permitted development.

It is acknowledged that permitted development rights are restricted at Chiswick Quay. This application, while retrospective, is assessed upon its own merits.

Proposal does not comply with the Council’s planning guidelines

See paragraphs 7.1 - 7.21

Loss of daylight and outlook to neighbouring property

See paragraphs 7.15 - 7.19

The pergola exceeds the permitted height for built structures on the estate

Apart from permitted development restrictions, there is no specific height limit on the estate in planning terms. Boundary treatments appear to have been limited to approximately a metre high.

No garden plan has been submitted This has since been provided by the applicant.

The submitted photos do not demonstrate the full impact of the pergola. An officer site visit is recommended.

A site visit was undertaken by the case officer.

The pergola at 41 Chiswick Quay is currently subject to planning enforcement action, and does not therefore form part of the area’s established character, as has been claimed.

See paragraphs 7.9 - 7.10

The claimed benefit of the pergola as a shaded play area is contradicted by the fact that the pergola has no roof.

The application is assessed upon its own merits.

The claimed “temporary” nature of the structure is not accompanied by specific timelines.

The application is assessed upon its own merits.

5.6 The planning application 01385/37/P3 was placed on the Pending Decisions List dated 14 - 21 April 2017 (Week 15) to be recommended for refusal.

5.7 There was a request by Councillor Hearn for the planning application to be decided at Planning Committee.

5.8 The planning enforcement case BWR/2016/00718 was placed on the Pending Decisions List dated 16 – 23 June 2017 (Week 24) as a breach of planning control where enforcement is to be undertaken.

6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

6.1 The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance considerations must also be assessed.

The National Planning Policy Framework

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012 and has replaced national policies and guidance formerly contained in Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes and some other documents. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF is a material consideration and as such, it will be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.

The Development Plan

6.3 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Local Plan (adopted by the Council on 15 September 2015), the West London Waste Plan and the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011.

6.4 The Local Plan documents can be viewed on the Planning Policy pages of the Hounslow website.

Determining applications in a conservation area

6.5 In considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.6 Relevant Local Plan Policies

CC1 Context and Character

CC2 Urban Design and Architecture

CC4 Heritage

SC7 Residential Extensions and Alterations

GB5 Blue Ribbon Network

GB7 Biodiversity

6.7 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Residential Extension Guidelines

Section 8.0 Development in Conservation Areas

6.8 The Residential Extension Guidelines were introduced to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting neighbours’ interests, keeping a good quality and attractive street scene and meeting applicants’ reasonable expectations for increased accommodation.

6.9 Grove Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal

6.10 Thames Strategy – Kew to Chelsea, June 2002

6.11 London Plan

Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management

Policy 7.4 Local Character

Policy 7.6 Architecture

Policy 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology

Policy 7.24 Blue Ribbon Network

Policy 7.29 The River Thames

7.0 ASSESSMENT

Relevant Policy Considerations

7.1 Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning should “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”.

7.2 Section 7 of the NPPF (Requiring Good Design) requires that developments contribute positively and add to the overall character of the area. They should also respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. It also states that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

7.3 Para. 64 of the NPPF states that “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.

7.4 Local Plan Policy CC4 (Heritage) requires development in Conservation Areas to conserve and enhance the character of the area, and respect the grain, scale, form, proportions, and materials of the surrounding area and existing architecture. The Grove Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal acknowledges the high design quality of Chiswick Quay, as does the Urban Context and Character Study, which further notes the high sensitivity to change within the estate and neighbouring developments.

7.5 The application site also forms part of the Thames Policy Area, which is a London Plan designation underlined by Local Plan Policy GB5 (Blue Ribbon Network). Policy GB5 requires that development proposals within the

Thames Policy Area have regard to the context and character of the Blue Ribbon Network. This area of the Thames is also covered by the Thames Strategy - Kew to Chelsea, June 2002 and the same themes as are covered in the Thames Policy Area also apply and are material considerations.

7.6 There is a need for planning enforcement to improve areas and remove unauthorised development which causes material harm.

How would the proposal affect the appearance of the area and is this acceptable?

7.7 The Grove Park Conservation Area Statement identifies the Chiswick Quay estate as being a 20th century development of high design quality. The Statement also identifies the development of private river frontages for non-river-related purposes as a pressure on the area which detracts from the semi-parkland setting. The infilling of land surrounding properties is also identified as a factor in reducing the prevailing characteristic of spaciousness.

7.8 The line of houses from 34-46 Chiswick Quay exhibits a distinct and ordered architectural rhythm, which has remained largely intact. It is considered that the pergola disrupts this rhythm and the general openness to the rear of the terrace.

7.9 There are two pergola structures within this 68-house estate (at nos. 13 and 46 Chiswick Quay), although there is no planning history for either structure and both are now immune from enforcement action due to the passage of time. Notwithstanding, neither pergola projects beyond recessed areas of their host properties, and are therefore considerably less prominent than the pergola at 37 Chiswick Quay, which is detached from the rear of the house and extends beyond the rear walls of neighbouring properties. It is considered that these earlier structures do not constitute a precedent for pergolas within the estate, nor does this assessment constitute an endorsement of the existing pergolas at 13 and 46 Chiswick Quay.

7.10 In addition to the application property and the two older pergolas discussed above, a metal pergola was recently erected at 41 Chiswick Quay. This is currently subject to an on-going planning enforcement case. The existence of both of these recent pergolas along the river frontage serve to demonstrate the cumulative harm that such structures have on the character of the riverside properties, and the estate as a whole. While each individual application should be assessed on its own merits, the approval of the structure at 37 Chiswick Quay could result in a proliferation of similar rear garden structures along the riverside. This would have the potential to alter the character of the estate to an irretrievable extent.

7.11 The pergola is visible from both banks of the Thames, particularly the north bank between the river and the rear of the terrace at 34-46 Chiswick Quay. While it is noted that Chiswick Quay is a private highway, the riverside path forms part of the Thames Path National Trail and is in frequent use by members of the public.

7.12 The pergola is clad in materials which differ from those of the existing house, and protrudes significantly beyond the staggered building line. It is therefore considered that the pergola appears as an incongruous and obtrusive addition to the river frontage of the estate and would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the wider Grove Park Conservation Area. As such, the development is contrary to policies CC1, CC2, and CC4 of the Local Plan and policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan.

Impact on the Thames Policy Area

7.13 The site is designed to face towards and be viewed from the river, in the style of the Port Grimaud development in France. The addition of a pergola structure to the rear of the property creates a jarring effect and disrupts the highly symmetrical appearance of the site as viewed from the river.

7.14 The impact on the river would be significant because the host property and its semi-parkland setting by the riverside are so prominent to passers-by. The Thames Path, which is a National Trail, runs on both sides of the river adjacent to the application site, and the proposal would be clearly visible, particularly from the north bank of the river. The disruption of this form would disfigure the view, and would therefore be contrary to the aim of protecting the waterside environment as set out in Local Plan policy GB5 and policies 7.24 and 7.29 of the London Plan.

How would the proposal affect neighbours and is this acceptable?

7.15 Chiswick Quay was designed as an open plan estate and as such there is an expectation of openness, particularly along the Thameside frontage at 30-33 and 34-46 Chiswick Quay, which has remained almost unaltered since its creation.

7.16 Given the position of the rear garden pergola and its 2.80m set back from the boundary with 36 Chiswick Quay to the north-west, it is considered that there would be no loss of light or outlook to this neighbour as a result of the proposal.

7.17 However, the rear garden pergola is set back just 0.30m from the boundary with 38 Chiswick Quay to the south-east, and would extend 2.33m beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring property.

7.18 While the orientation of the properties is such that there would be a minimal loss of direct sunlight and ambient daylight to 38 Chiswick Quay, it is considered that the size and scale of the pergola would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents through a loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure.

7.19 Therefore, the pergola is considered to be contrary to policies CC2 and SC7 of the Local Plan.

Previous Appeal Decisions

7.20 Previously, there have been two planning applications and a lawful development certificate application submitted for development to the rear of this property. All three applications have been refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal. The Inspectors in these appeal decisions have been clear in their refusal decisions that the development has been clearly planned as a riverfront scheme, with openness at its heart. The Local Plan has been adopted since these previous decisions were made. However, it is not considered that the policies protecting the area have materially changed. Enforcement

7.21 The council takes enforcement action to remove development that is considered to cause material harm. It is considered that the unauthorised erection of a pergola at this location causes material harm and thus should be removed.

8.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The public sector equality duty applies to all council decisions including planning decisions the duty is as follows:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

(2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;

(b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

(c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

(4) The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

(5) Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

(a) tackle prejudice, and

(b) promote understanding.

(6) Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.

(7) The relevant protected characteristics are—

age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; marriage and civil partnership; sexual orientation.

8.2 Due regard needs to be demonstrated in the decision making process and requires an analysis of the material with the specific statutory considerations in mind. It does not follow that the considerations raised will be decisive in a particular case the weight given to them will be for the decision maker. The equalities duty is not a duty to achieve a particular result. Some equalities considerations are covered under other legislation such as building control matters. Officers have in considering this application and preparing this report had regard to the public sector equality duty and have concluded that due regard has been given to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

9.0 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

9.1 This proposal is not liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION:

10.1 REFUSE PLANNING APPLICATION 01385/37/P3 (FPREFUSAL)

Reasons:

1. The pergola structure, by virtue of its size, scale, design and position, is a discordant feature when viewed from the River Thames and its immediate foreshore and therefore fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Chiswick Quay estate and the wider Grove Park Conservation Area. Consequently, the development is contrary to the aims of Local Plan policies CC1 (Context and Character), CC2 (Urban Design and Architecture), CC4 (Heritage) and GB5 (Blue Ribbon Network), and London Plan policies 7.4 (Local Character), 7.6 (Architecture), 7.8 (Heritage Assets and Archaeology), 7.24 (Blue Ribbon Network) and 7.29 (The River Thames).

2. The proposed pergola structure, by virtue of its scale and position,

harms neighbours’ living conditions through a loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of Local Plan policies CC2 (Urban Design and Architecture) and SC7 (Residential Extensions and Alterations).

10.2 SERVE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

It is considered expedient, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Local Plan and the London Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for all necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of enforcement notice(s) in relation to 37 Chiswick Quay, Chiswick, W4 3UR, requiring within three calendar months:

a. The removal of the pergola structure b. The removal of all resultant debris from the property

Reasons:

1. The breach of planning control has taken place in the last four years.

2. The pergola structure, by virtue of its size, scale, design and position, is a discordant feature when viewed from the River Thames and its immediate foreshore and therefore fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Chiswick Quay estate and the wider Grove Park Conservation Area. Consequently, the development is contrary to the aims of Local Plan policies CC1 (Context and Character), CC2 (Urban Design and Architecture), CC4 (Heritage) and GB5 (Blue Ribbon Network), and London Plan policies 7.4 (Local Character), 7.6 (Architecture), 7.8 (Heritage Assets and Archaeology), 7.24 (Blue Ribbon Network) and 7.29 (The River Thames).

3. The proposed pergola structure, by virtue of its scale and position, harms neighbours’ living conditions through a loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of Local Plan policies CC2 (Urban Design and Architecture) and SC7 (Residential Extensions and Alterations).

4. The Council considers that it is expedient to serve the notice and that

there are no steps short of these required by the Council, which can be taken to remedy the breaches of planning control.

Informatives:

1. Permission refused, no pre-app, no discussion

To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced planning policies and written guidance, which are available on the Council's website. The Council also offers a pre-application advice service. In this case, the scheme does not comply with guidance and no pre application discussions were entered into. The Council is ready to enter into

discussions with the applicants to assist in the preparation of a new planning application if necessary. The decision was made in a timely manner and clear reasons for refusal were given to assist in any prospective future development of the site.

Drawing Numbers: Location Plan ref TQRQM17065124941506 received 08/03/2017. Block Plan ref 10046950, and unnumbered Axonometric Drawing received 31/03/2017.

Background Papers:

The contents of planning file referenced on the front page of this report, save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2