Appeal 3348760

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed alterations upon the character and appearance of the host property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shrewsbury Park Estate Conservation Area (the CA).

The estate was designed by the house builder [name] and Son built in the main from 1934-1936. The special character of the CA is defined principally by the consistency and uniformity of the architecture of the [name]. Properties at [address] express the consistent character and uniformity of the style and detailing relating to this period of domestic houses. Historically the estate hosted common housing details, such as, the consistent use of standard window designs. The consistent architectural detailing of the Laing houses adds to the Estate’s definite identifiable stylistic character.

The architectural and historic value and characteristics of the estate makes the area special and worthy of CA status. The detailing provides the CA with a distinctive quality to both the character and appearance of the area and gives this area architectural significance. The appeal property falls within this CA and, therefore, forms part of its significance.

The properties that form part of the [name] are covered by an Article 4 Direction. The Article 4 Direction brings under planning control, amongst other matters, the installation or alteration of windows and doors to the front, side or rear and any alterations to a roof or chimney, including dormer windows and roof lights. The aim of the [name] for this area is to protect the period character of the houses and the street scenes.

Of concern to the Council is the refurbishment work to the rear elevation with the reinstatement of rear bay windows and door to aluminium Smart Alitherm Heritage in black and the installation of two new top hung Velux 'heritage conservation’ windows on the rear side of the roof.

The Shrewsbury Park Estate CA [name] seeks the original windows and doors to be retained and repaired rather than replaced. Any door and window replacements on all elevations are encouraged to replicate the original window or door design. Whilst the Council indicates that the reinstatement of the rear bay windows and door would be acceptable in principle, the use of the colour ‘black’ for the frames would not be acceptable as it would not respect the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA Management Strategy comments that all the houses were originally built with steel windows. While the choice of paint colour for external joinery is not subject to planning control, it is recommended that heritage-type colours be used. The Management Strategy advises that the original window frames were painted brush grain, cream, black and cream or dark green and cream. Therefore, the use of the colour ‘black’ would not be uncharacteristic when considering the historic context of the estate.

Within the Shrewsbury Park Estate CA roof lights, even to the rear, are rare. The roof scape is an important visual characteristic and on the [name] is largely unaltered by replacement tiling, dormers or roof lights. As such the roof scape is an important visual characteristic of the CA.

Two Heritage Conservation Velux windows that are slender in size are proposed within the rear roof slope. The CA Management Strategy comments that roof lights are usually less obtrusive if they are of the ‘conservation roof light’ style, lying flush to the roof. That said, the proposed roof lights would visually disrupt the uniformity of the host building and that of the predominantly unaltered roof forms within the estate.

The roof lights on the rear roof slope would be an unsympathetic addition to the dwelling that would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and would not bring about a positive impact to the wider character or setting of the Shrewsbury Park CA. Whilst not prominently visible from any public vantage point these discordant features would be visible in the outlook of existing neighbouring occupiers.

Given the size and scale of the proposal in the CA, I consider there would be less than substantial harm to the character or appearance of the CA. In accordance with paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework), I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide additional living space within the property but this would be limited to providing a personal benefit for the appellant. There would be no clear benefit to the public that would sufficiently outweigh the harm identified. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would fail to accord with national policy.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed roof lights would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shrewsbury Park Estate CA. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies DH1, DH3, DH(a), and DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] and [name] 2014, the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2023, the Shrewsbury Park Estate CA Character Appraisal and [name] 2013 and the provisions of the Framework.

These policies, management strategy and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character. They also seek to protect or enhance the character or appearance of the Royal Borough’s CAs.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.