![\"Boundary](\"https:\/\/stqw.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/CA-map.png\")
<\/a>Boundary of conservation area in green<\/p><\/div>\n
The Conservation Area was first designated in 1979, and much of the\u00a0Conservation Area<\/a>\u00a0Proposals Statement (CAPS)\u00a0<\/a>on the RBKC website dates from that time. \u00a0Some revisions were made in 1990, but parts of the document are now very out of date.<\/p>\n The boundaries of the conservation area were extended in 2002, to include Bracewell Road, Brewster Gardens, Dalgarno Gardens, Barlby Road, and Oakworth, Hill Farm and Methwold Roads. \u00a0 Hence almost all the RBKC streets in the StQW neighbourhood fall within the conservation area (Latimer Road and the streets off it being the exception). This map shows the western boundary of the Oxford Gardens CA superimposed on the boundary of the neighbourhood area.<\/p>\n Conservation area status involves some restrictions on what alterations and changes owners can make to their property. \u00a0 There is strong evidence that the resultant protection of architectural and heritage features adds value to homes. \u00a0 A 2012 study by English Heritage and the London School of Economics showed that houses in conservation areas have a 9% premium in value as compared with similar properties outside the area. \u00a0 This premium shrinks if conservation policies are ignored or not enforced.<\/p>\n It is therefore in the collective interests of residents to ensure that conservation policies are observed. \u00a0Such policies also need to be workable, applied fairly and consistently by the council when making planning decisions, and not unduly restrictive in preventing owners from adapting older houses to meet contemporary lifestyles. \u00a0This balance is not always easy to strike.<\/p>\n In proposing a set of variations to existing RBKC policies, to apply within the StQW neighbourhood, the Forum is seeking to get this balance right. \u00a0\u00a0As a general theme, the proposals involve continued protection of the front part of houses, while allowing some more freedom at the back.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 The outward appearance of the Edwardian and Victorian houses in the area, as seen from the street, is the key aspect of the conservation area.<\/p>\n This neighbourhood acquired conservation status because it is a good example of homogeneous domestic architecture of its time, and not because it includes many Listed Buildings or those of special interest. \u00a0 We need to ensure that these characteristics remain.<\/p>\n The public meeting of the StQW Forum on April 24th 2014 discussed 8 aspects of existing conservation policies. \u00a0 We looked at slides of examples, as below, and took a\u00a0hand vote<\/strong>\u00a0on whether policies should be strengthened, relaxed, or stay the same. \u00a0 The results of the vote are shown below, under each each topic. \u00a0The suggestions made to the meeting also reflected the views provided by the 104 respondents to the StQW survey.<\/p>\n 1. Rear dormers<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>have long been an issue of some contention in the area. \u00a0Under current RBKC policies, planning permission for loft conversions with rear dormers has been granted for houses in some streets, but refused in others. \u00a0This has led to perceptions of inconsistency and unfair treatment. \u00a0The current principle that dormers should not be allowed in ‘unbroken’ rooflines can deny a house-owner the opportunity to extend a home at relatively little cost (as compared with e.g. basements) while allowing this for near neighbours.<\/p>\n Rear dormers as part of loftrooms<\/p><\/div>\n The\u00a0initial view\u00a0<\/strong>of the Forum is that rear dormers should be allowed in all the streets in that part of the conservation area within the StQW neighbourhood, provided they conform to RBKC design guidelines in terms width and height. \u00a0The vote at the meeting was For 18 and Against 2.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 (The image below shows 3 rear dormers, of which the one on the left looks as if it pre-dates and exceeds these guidelines).<\/p>\n Rooflights on front roofs<\/p><\/div>\n Current RBKC conservation policies do not permit rooflights on front roofs, while allowing ‘conservation’ rooflights at the rear and (usually) on the side roofs of end-of-terrace houses. The\u00a0initial view<\/strong>\u00a0of the Forum is that this policy should be continued. Allowing rooflights on front roofs would severely damage the appearance of roofscapes from the street. \u00a0Cross- ventilation to loft rooms can be achieved by other means. \u00a0The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 22 and Against 2.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 The image below shows the impact of front rooflights, and is of a nearby street outside the conservation area.<\/p>\n 3. Painting of brickwork on front facades\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Painting of front facades in the ‘red brick’ streets<\/p><\/div>\n This is discouraged in the 1975\/1990 Oxford Gardens\u00a0CAPS. \u00a0There is also an RBKC Article 4\u00a0Direction in place, applying to the ‘red brick’ streets in the area, which removes permitted development rights to make ‘alterations and extensions to any part of those elevations\u00a0of the dwelling house which front onto a highway’.<\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0Advice from the council is that painting of brickwork (surprisingly) does not constitute an ‘alteration’ and can therefore be carried out as permitted development.<\/p>\n The\u00a0initial view<\/strong>\u00a0of the Forum is that the painting of brickwork on front facades should not be allowed. as its cumulative effect would destroy the present pleasing and consistent appearance of our streets. \u00a0This view is felt more strongly in relation to the ‘red brick’ streets as compared with e.g. Bracewell Road and Brewster Gardens, where house types are more varied and where a significant number of facades are already painted. \u00a0 As part of the Neighbourhood Plan, the council could be asked to apply to specified streets an Article 4 Direction stating that front facades should not be painted. \u00a0The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 22 Against 0.<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. Front boundary walls and fences<\/strong><\/p>\n Front boundary wall. How high should they go?<\/p><\/div>\n These are an aspect of the conservation area where fashions have been changing. \u00a0The original design of the streets on the St Quintin Estate involved low brick walls and with hedges. \u00a0Recent years have seen the introduction of significantly higher walls and railings \u00a0There is now a wide variety of boundary treatments, including wooden fences and metal or ironwork railings as well as hedges.<\/p>\n The desire of house owners to increase levels of security for the area in front of their houses is understandable. \u00a0This has been coupled with the introduction of more hard surfacing and outdoor storage for bins and bikes. \u00a0 But the cumulative effect is beginning to change the feel of the streets. \u00a0It is also not clear that all these alterations have been the subject of planning applications, where needed. \u00a0 The\u00a0initial view<\/strong>\u00a0of the Forum is that front boundary walls\/railings should not exceed 1m in height, \u00a0this being the maximum allowed under permitted development rights. \u00a0\u00a0The vote at the meeting for this proposal was For 17 \u00a0Against 0.<\/strong><\/p>\n 5<\/strong>.\u00a0Permeable surfaces in front garden areas\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n These are disappearing across the neighbourhood, with a growing number of former garden areas being covered with impermeable paving or slate. \u00a0This creates problems of surface water run-off and resultant risk of flash flooding. Although this neighbourhood has no history of flooding it is a very real issue in other parts of the Borough. \u00a0Demands on the Counters Creek main sewerage\/drainage system grow by the year, with the new developments in White City adding to these. \u00a0 Hence the\u00a0initial view<\/strong>\u00a0of the Forum is that front garden areas (other than the main front path) should consist of permeable surfaces (this can include e.g. cobbles, stones, brick and other hard surfaces laid on a bed of sand). The vote at the meeting was unanimously in favour of this approach.<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. Insulated render on back walls<\/strong><\/p>\n Insulated render on rear walls, to reduce fuel costs<\/p><\/div>\n This is currently resisted by RBKC as being a replacement of original brickwork. \u00a0The arguments in favour are based on the resultant increased insulation levels at a time of rising fuel costs. \u00a0The case against is the change of appearance and the potential issues when a ‘thicker’ wall meets an existing one in a terrace or a pair of houses (the thickness of such render being a minimum of 2-3 inches). \u00a0 The Forum was marginally opposed to allowing insulated render on back walls,\u00a0the vote being For 11 and Against 13.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7. Side extensions or infill extensions<\/strong><\/p>\n These are extensions,\u00a0<\/strong>where the original rear\u00a0side passage is incorporated into the body of a terraced house with a glazed roof to the party wall, are a popular form of alteration to houses in our neighbourhood. \u00a0These are normally granted planning permission by RBKC unless particular factors apply. \u00a0They may also be a source of contention between immediate neighbours, as they have an impact on daylight\/sunlight and aspect where one house owner wishes to build such an extension whereas their immediate neighbour does not.<\/p>\n Full width extension<\/p><\/div>\n The\u00a0initial view\u00a0<\/strong>of the Forum is that side extensions should continue to be permitted, subject to a maximum height of 3m at the Party Wall and a maximum slope of 45 degrees on the additional roof. \u00a0 A 3m height is that which is allowed in such contexts under permitted development. \u00a0 In some streets RBKC requires the rear facade of a back extension to include a small setback to demonstrate that the side part is ‘subordinate’ to the original rear of the building. \u00a0This is incompatible with full width sliding doors or glazing. \u00a0 The view of the Forum is that this is an unnecessary requirement, which should be dropped to allow full width extensions. \u00a0\u00a0The vote at the meeting was unanimously in favour of both the above approaches to back and side extensions.<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. ‘Garden studios\/workrooms’<\/strong><\/p>\n Buildings of a significant size, in rear gardens, have become another feature of houses in the neighbourhood. \u00a0In many cases these may be built under permitted development rights with no requirement for planning permission, provided they are less than 3m high at the maximum roof height. In other case planning permission has been granted (and sometimes refused) for more substantial outbuildings with their own showers and WCs. \u00a0In all cases such outbuildings are supposed to be ‘ancillary’ to the main house rather than a separate dwelling. \u00a0But the distinction between a ‘guestroom’ and a sublet mini-residence may become blurred in practice. \u00a0 Council policies on such outbuildings are not well defined and were drafted to apply to more conventional ‘conservatories’. The initial view of the Forum is that more\u00a0control is needed over such outbuildings, given that gardens in the area are generally small and that use of such rooms can reduce privacy and enjoyment of gardens. \u00a0 Controls could take the form of percentage limits on the area of garden to be used, or requiring that such structures should not occupy the full width of gardens. \u00a0More research is needed before an effective neighbourhood policy could be drafted. \u00a0\u00a0The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 17 \u00a0Against 0.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/a>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n