Appeal 3327046

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of a grade II listed wall.

The appeal property is a large detached, two-storey dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of [site address] with [address] and within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy Supplementary Planning Document December 2013 (CAAMS) forms part of the Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document. The CAAMS describes the special interest of the CA as relating to its unusual mix of very old buildings and 1930s development in an "Old-World" style which successfully mimics the historic buildings around it and which are complemented by surrounding open spaces and greenery, creating an area of picturesque charm that is unique within the wider Stanmore area.

[site address] was built in the 1980s in an Arts and Crafts style with red facing bricks, dark roof tiles and tile hanging, and dark painted timber cladding and fenestration. It sits behind a grade II listed brick wall at the back edge of the pavement along [address] and which turns the corner into [site address] behind dense evergreen planting leading up to the property’s entrance gates. The house appears very much sympathetic in its setting, respectful of the CA’s wider character, and is identified within the CAAMS as a ‘[name] building.

The existing windows to [site address] are numerous and mostly consistent throughout, appearing as timber framed casements of various sizes in a Georgian style with glazing bars in a grid pattern (except for some ground floor patio style doors and windows) and all painted dark brown. I share the Council’s view that they appear in keeping with other traditional timber windows in the CA and that they are an important feature of the dwelling that contributes towards its positive presence.

The application form describes the proposal as ‘replacement of all external wooden windows and doors to aluminium double glazed’. The application drawings show existing and proposed elevations for the building as virtually identical, but with the ground floor patio style doors and windows replaced with a grid pattern of glazing bars for the new frames. I have also noted a set of twenty-seven individual drawings which show images of all the proposed replacement casement windows and doors detailed with external dimensions. These drawings show the frames described as jet black and the internal bars as ‘Slim, Black/White’. From this information, the style of replacement windows would broadly appear to complement the style of the dwelling. However, the precise details of the proposed windows and doors are vague and confusing. Much of the supporting information provided is technical and I find the appellant’s assertion within their grounds of appeal that the proposal would comprise ‘aluminium double glazed windows within an overall timber frame’ inconsistent in part with the materials information on the application form and other information provided. Without any clarity on the precise use of materials proposed, the colour choice of glazing bars, or details of their profile, I cannot be certain about the appearance of the windows that are proposed.

I accept that much of [site address] is screened from view along the public domain, but the dwelling is by no means out of sight and its first-floor windows, as part of the building’s overall character and appearance, are prominent from [address], seen above the boundary wall and in reasonably close proximity. As such, the dwelling, along with the positive contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the CA, is sensitive to change.

Overall, the information provided lacks sufficient clarity and therefore I cannot be satisfied that the proposed replacement windows in terms of their material, profile, detail, or colour would complement the dwelling. In these circumstances the proposed changes to [site address] would have the potential to harm the character and appearance of the dwelling. This in turn would harm the character and appearance of the CA and the setting within which the adjacent grade II listed wall is scene and appreciated.

Having regard to paragraph 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework as revised (the Framework), the harm arising from the proposal to the significance of the CA and the wall as designated heritage assets would be less than substantial. However, this does not equate to a less than substantial objection and any harm to a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification in line with paragraph 206 of the Framework. Furthermore, in line with the Framework’s paragraph 208, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Given the statutory duties set out in Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting, and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, I attach significant weight to the harms that I have identified to the historic environment.

I appreciate that the existing window frames may need replacement and that alternatives would be likely to improve upon security and energy efficiency. But these factors do not offer clear justification for a proposal that lacks clarity and neither do they alter my conclusions as they relate to the appearance of the proposed replacements based on the information provided. The window styles of other nearby properties reflect the individual buildings’ unique circumstances in each case. No public benefits arising from the proposal have been put to me.

I recognise the appellant’s frustration in attempting to seek guidance from the Council over precisely what form of replacement windows would be acceptable, but this does not affect the merits of the case that is before me.

For the reasons given I find that the proposal would potentially harm the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the setting of a grade II listed wall. As such, there would be conflict with [name] 2012 Policy CS1 parts B and D, and Harrow Council Development Management Policies 2013 Policies DM1 and DM7 which require, amongst them, development proposals to respond positively and to respect local character, including the historic context, and to ensure development proposals secure the conservation of heritage assets and their settings. For the same reasons there would also be conflict with The London Plan 2021 Policy HC1, which deals with heritage conservation and growth, and the Framework’s objectives for conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.