The appellants proposed to construct a glass-reinforced plastic shroud disguised as a brick chimney to hide the apparatus. The council claimed that the prominently sited mock chimney would look incongruous. The inspector commended the appellants for their innovative design but agreed with the council that it would not convincingly imitate a traditional brick and mortar chimney because it could not replicate the surface texture.
In addition, he pointed out that chimneys are not typical features of buildings designed to serve as telephone exchanges. Adding an artificial structure to a flat-roofed commercial building would appear incongruous and unconvincing, he opined. It would not be sympathetically sited because it would be clearly visible from various public viewpoints, he determined.
DCS Number 100-058-180
Inspector Simon Miles; Written representations