Heritage appeal statement for a Victorian building in the Westbourne Conservation Area.

Refused for the loss of one feature.

In 2023 the council granted permission for a mansard roof, with drawings that showed the pediment kept. During the work the owner’s structural engineer found that the pediment and the parapet wall beneath it were leaning outwards and that the beam carrying them had deflected. The pediment was taken down and the parapet rebuilt without it.

An application to amend the approved drawings accordingly was refused in December 2023, on the ground that the loss of the pediment would harm the building and fail to preserve or enhance the conservation area. That application had not been supported by a heritage statement.

The test on appeal was s.72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: whether the character or appearance of the conservation area would be preserved or enhanced. The council’s case assumed that the pediment was an original and important feature of the building. That assumption had not been examined.

What the pediment was.

We inspected the building and walked the conservation area in May 2024. We looked at Ordnance Survey maps of 1867 and 1895, an aerial photograph of 1949 and photographs of the building from 2015 and 2022.

The evidence pointed one way. The 1949 photograph shows a pediment on this building but on none of its neighbours, and pediments of the kind are not a feature of the area. The engineer’s survey had concluded that the pediment may have been a later addition, not allowed for in the original structure.

In 2013 part of it had fallen into the street. From then until 2019 what remained was held in a wrapping, and after that in a bulky plaster and timber casing. For a decade, what could be seen from the street was the casing and not the stonework.

The appeal statement.

Our appeal statement of May 2024 set out that history. It assessed the significance of the pediment as low, further reduced by its condition and its encasement, and argued that the rebuilt parapet matched those on either side.

It concluded that permanent removal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the significance of the building.

Appeal allowed.

The Inspector allowed the appeal in November 2024. The decision records that “there is no conclusive evidence before me that the pediment was original to the building”, that pediments “are not a notable feature of buildings in the area”, and that after 2013 the pediment had been given “an incongruous, bulky appearance”.

The Inspector went further than we had. “I am not convinced that the pediment, especially in its more recent bulky state, was an important feature of the building or street scene that it was necessary to retain. Instead, its permanent removal would have a small but positive effect.”

The proposal was found to maintain and enhance the conservation area and the building.