Appeal 3311711

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this is a concise and accurate description, which has also been used by the appellant for their statement.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal property is a large 3 storey Victorian house in [name] style, which currently retains what appear to be its original single-glazed timber windows. It sits on one side of [address] with other similar large houses, which are set behind large front gardens and driveways. The other side of the street is made up of later and less generously proportioned Edwardian terraced houses.

[address] is located towards the outer edge of the CA, which centres on Brockwell Park and forms part of the park’s wider setting. Along with many properties on [address], the appeal property maintains many of its original features and contributes to the significance of the CA.

The CA is a heritage asset to which I have a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The proposal is to replace the existing single-glazed timber framed windows with double-glazed timber framed windows. This follows a previously refused planning application of UPVC replacement windows. The design of the proposed replacement windows seeks to reflect the appearance and character of the existing windows. The proposal would also provide for improved security and energy efficiency through better insulation.

The submitted plans demonstrate applied rather than integral glazing bars. The design guidance for replacement windows as it relates to heritage assets is set out in paragraph 2.7 of the Council’s Building Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (the SPD). This sets out that if replacement windows for heritage assets do not accurately replace the originals, permission to do so is likely to be refused. This includes the specification of applied rather than integral glazing bars.

The CA includes many Victorian and Edwardian houses with original or accurately replicated replacement windows. The proposed use of applied rather than integral glazing bars, would result in fenestration detailing that would fail to replicate the appearance or character of the existing windows. The proposal would, therefore, result in unconvincing replacements that would not reflect the architectural quality or character of the appeal property and, within the local context, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

The appellant has brought to my attention UPVC replacement windows and skylights in the local area. However, no further details have been provided with regard to age or planning status. From my site visit the harm to the character and appearance of these properties, and to that of the CA, through the installation of architecturally unsympathetic windows is, however, apparent.

For this reason, the proposal would fail to accord with the design guidance in the SPD and would be contrary to policies Q5, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework). These collectively seek to ensure that development is of high-quality design, positively responds to original architecture, sustains and reinforces local distinctiveness and preserves or enhances the character or appearance of a conservation area.

[name] find the harm to the CA would be considered less than substantial, in accordance with the Framework, great weight should be given to the conservation of those assets. Whilst the proposal would result in some limited public security and energy efficiency benefits, the benefits would be primarily private in nature. I must give considerable importance and weight to the effect on the significance of the CA and I consider that these benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.