Published: 13 March, 2014
by RICHARD OSLEY

IT is a victory for pebbledash purists – and an expensive defeat for a property owner who dared to smooth over the rough cladding from her home.

In a case which turned neighbour against neighbour and rumbled on for more than a year, a planning inspector has ruled that homeowner Susanne Willumsen must face the laborious task of replacing the pebbledash finish she had removed from her £2.3million house in picturesque Crediton Hill, West Hampstead.

Neighbours had claimed her smooth white render finish did not match the pebbledash pattern repeated on the other properties in the street. 

And the fact that the homes in the street did not completely match proved too much to stomach for the West End Green Conservation Area Advisory Committee, who complained to Camden Council, which in turn issued an “enforcement action” demanding the work was reversed.

The road is one of the most sought-after addresses in the area, where homes are generally snapped up as soon as they are placed on the market, and a long-term home for Oscar winner Emma Thompson, her mother Phyllida Law (they live in separate houses) and the celebrated acting couple Jim Carter and Imelda Staunton.

Stunned by the negative reaction by the conservationist group, Ms Willumsen took that decision to appeal but was told in Monday’s verdict by inspector David Rose that he would not overturn it.

The pebbledashing that conservationists sought to protect was said by Mr Rose to have “atmospheric pollution” and an “identifiable character”, which clashed with the smooth render that was “stark and bland by contrast”.

Ms Willumsen had argued that the render would be easier to maintain but Mr Rose insisted: “None of these factors provides a good reason to introduce a wholly different surface finish.”

The case has been the subject of wrangling for more than a year. ­How­ever, barring any further legal moves – a further  appeal would involve a potentially costly High Court action – Ms Willumsen will be given three months by the council to begin switching the render back to pebbledash.

She told the New Journal that her case had been laid out in her appeal papers. These expressed her surprise that nobody had complained while her builders were conducting the work. 

The papers suggested she resented being told she had committed a “severe violation”, adding: “There are a number of ‘severe violations’ in the street which among others include unsightly paintwork, PVC windows and the complete removal of front gardens in favour of parking spaces.”

The appeal said the complaints had begun to feel personal, adding: “The render was completed many months ago and the extremely late objections to all planning applications are clearly intended to cause maximum distress and financial burden”.

In reply, the conservation body insisted that a “significant number” of neighbours were “unhappy that the finish is out of keeping with the rest of the street”.

Mr Rose said: “Although the quality of the materials used, and workmanship employed, is not the subject of criticism, the smooth render is not compatible in texture and it fails to reinforce the characteristic material used in the locality.”