Clapton CAAC October 2017

Planning Applications for Clapton CAAC 19 October 2017

2017/3079 398-400 Mare Street E8 1HP Erection of single storey estate management office (Micheal Garvey 020 8356 8053)

Insofar as we can ascertain what is proposed the Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal, but we note that drawings, a planning statement, and a D&A statement are all referred to in the application, but missing fromt the Council's website.

2017/3735 3 Ickburgh Road E5 8AF Demolition of existing side return extension and erection of single storey rear and side extensions at ground floor level. (Louise Smith 0208 356 8061)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/3633 77 Osbaldeston Road N16 6NS Demolition of rear roof extension at second floor level, erection of rear dormer extension (Sissi Yang 02083561352)

It is not clear from the development description whether the application is confined solely to the second floor/roof. The application documents additionally seek to retain unauthorised works below which have been the subject of other applications and enforcements. The proposed roof extension is broadly acceptable in principle, but deviates from the consented 2013/0863 scheme where it was convincingly argued that the roof dormer should match No 79. We say that is the better approach and would urge the applicant to withdraw this application and implement the matching roof dormer in 2013/0863. As to the rest of the proposal, the extant permission 2013/0863 is what ought to be pursued and the proposed retention and reconfiguration in this application is unacceptable for all the reasons previously rehearsed.

2017/3517 54 Durlston Road E5 8RR Erection of a rear dormer to the main roof; extension above the outrigger and insertion of two rooflights to the front roof form. (Elliott Doumanis 020 8356 1804)

Broadly, the Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal provided the ridge of the rear roof is not raised or built above - the drawings are not absolutely clear on this point. Additionally, the size windows should have obscured glazing.

2017/2318 58 Lower Clapton Road E5 0RN Display of 1 no. internally illuminated advertisement screen in shop window behind glazing at ground floor level (1.2m high x 2.5m wide x 0.1m deep). (Sissi Yang 02083561352)

There are insufficient details in this application to determine the brightness and type of display but it is noted that until recently the shop had, for many months, been operating and unauthorised moving video display which was extremely bright and distracting and clearly harmed the setting of both the Grade II listed Round Chapel and the character of the conservation area. In any event, internally illuminated signs are contrary to the shopfront design guide and should be resisted, particularly when not at the fascia level.

2017/3805 34 Powell Road E5 8DJ Single storey full width ground floor rear extension. (Tom Watts 020 8356 1867)

The Clapton CAAC objects to the proposal on the grounds of it being overdevelopment.

2017/3861 1C Amhurst Road E8 1LL Installation of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign, 1 roof level sign, 1 hand painted logo applied to the side of the building and 1 logo sign applied to the retractable canopy. (Raymond Okot 020 8356 8080)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/3166 Ground Floor Part and First Floor Rear Flat 54 Ickburgh Road E5 8AD Replacement of existing timber framed windows with UPVC windows at the front elevation (retrospective). (Elliott Doumanis 020 8356 1804)

The Clapton CAAC recognize the significance of this application and suggests it requires the most careful of consideration.

Windows on front elevations really matter and their effect on the character of a street and a conservation area is hard to overstate. They are an integral part of the architectural language and style and a defining characteristic of a streetscape. This is captured in the Council's Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, in particular in paragraph 4.8 "Window frames and doors".

It specifically, and unambiguously identifies the typical shortcomings of uPVC and cites not just the "overly wide, flat" profiles commonly found in uPVC windows, but cites the "shiny appearance" along with "ecological, maintenance and sustainability concerns".

Whilst it might be argued the issue of an "overly wide" profile is addressed in this specific case (to an extent not previously noted), it is notable that NONE of the other issues are addressed in this case. In particular the "shiny appearance" and the long term sustainability and maintenance issues.

The more recent Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (updated September 2016) goes further, unambiguously asserting that "PVC windows are not acceptable... within conservation areas..." This recognises that replacing timber with PVC is unsustainable both because of the material's inherent energy requirements and environmental harm, and because timber can be maintained and repaired more easily.

Whilst in certain lighting, the proposed (as built) windows maintain a superficial similarity to the adjacent (and original) timber windows, they do not bear close scrutiny. The uPVC material inherently and demonstrably does not maintain such a similarity throughout the day, nor in all circumstances, and in particular it degrades differently to painted timber over time. uPVC material is, in this case and typically, unpainted and self-coloured and cannot match the lustre and appearance of painted timber. White uPVC in particular, discolours over time on exposure to UV in daylight. Whilst paint and foil treatments to uPVC do exist they are rare and untested, and in any event the smooth surface prevents the finish matching the characteristic grainy lustre of painted timber.

Back elevations, and to an extent upper floors, lack the scrutiny and impact of a primary font elevation at street level which is why determining this application appropriately is so critically important.

We say that on visual appearance alone, this application, by virtue of its inappropriate material, would harm the character and appearance of the CA.

Furthermore installation of what are essentially "mock timber box sash windows" lacks historic integrity and a parallel can be drawn to brick slip systems, which the Council is often at pains to discourage and prevent. At first glance, the appearance is similar to the material it is intended to mimic, but it lacks the integrity, quality and longevity, and in fairly short order has often proved more difficult to maintain than the authentic material.

The applicant gives undue weight to a 2009 appeal decision where an inspector ruled that the appellant's uPVC windows were sufficiently carefully detailed so as to match the original architectural detailing, and that there was no erosion of the character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding that the decision cannot set a general precedent, it can be distinguished from this application in a number of ways. Firstly the subject of the appeal is a first floor flat and the Inspector is careful to qualify his assessment of visual similarity by pointing out it is made from the street level below. Secondly it is not clear whether Enfield have similar supplementary planning guidance to that in Hackney which highlights the problems of uPVC specifically. Thirdly the Inspector gives critical weight to the fact the windows opened in the same manner as timber sash windows and that is not demonstrated in this case. Fourthly the decision is now nearly nine year old and there has been significant new policy at all levels since then - much of which is itself now regarded as in need of a refresh. Therefore the weight affrorded to it must be negligible.

On its own merits, this attempt to introduce visually similar "mock timber box sash windows" fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and is not a form of sustainable development.

2017/2494 Flat A 45 Northwold Road N16 7DH Erection of single storey side and rear extension at ground floor level incorporating courtyard garden and roof terrace/replacement rear opening at first floor level, together with associated works (Catherine Slade 020 8356 8056)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/3665 43 Oldhill Street N16 6LR Erection of roof extension at main roof level at second floor level to provide additional residential accommodation an existing flat. (Sissi Yang 02083561352)

The Clapton CAAC wrote of the withdrawn 2017/1203 application: "The proposal has all the subtlety of a helipad with its massive, overbearing projecting slab roof atop an unusually tall block roof extension. This is plainly harmful to the conservation area and to the host building with its finely detailed roof parapet.". The problems raised have not been overcome in this refinement, and our previous observations stand.

2017/3479 124 Brooke Road N16 7RS Conversion from residential house to two residential flats (1 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedrooms), excavation of basement and front lightwell with steps and metal handrails, replacement of existing front boundary wall with a new brick boundary wall, a new rear door at basement level, creation of an external space at basement level with metal handrails. (Sissi Yang 02083561352)

The Clapton CAAC doubts the basement benefits from sufficient light, but in any event the proposal would benefit from a revised boundary treatment of a railing atop a dwarf wall.

2017/3915 29 Forburg Road N16 6HP Erection of rear roof dormer extension; replacement of existing front door and window at basement level; replacement of existing rear window at basement level; installation of skylight to front roof slope. (Louise Smith 0208 356 8061)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.

2017/3583 6 Durlston Road E5 8RR Proposed replacement of the existing single glazed timber windows and doors on the front, side and rear elevations with new double glazed uPVC windows and doors. (Elliott Doumanis 020 8356 1804)

Replacement of painted timber sash with uPVC casements are not acceptable and contrary to the residential extensions SPG. The altered appearance would harm the character of the conservation area. We urge the applicant to look at the very many good examples of good quality double glazed replacement timber sash windows in the immediate vicinity, including at 26 & 49 Durlston Road and 38 Northwold Road.

2017/3959 4 Norcott Road N16 7BJ Reconfiguration of existing light-well, including installation of new iron railings, steps, windows, and a door. Modifications to existing side infill extension, including installation of rooflight, glazed roof and cladding. Modifications of existing window openings at lower ground and ground level, including introduction of two new windows either side of the bay at lower ground level towards the rear of the property. (Tom Watts 020 8356 1867)

The Clapton CAAC has no objection to the proposal.