Appeal 6000235

The appeal is dismissed.

Only the shopfront colour change and vinyl window coverings are in dispute, therefore I have dealt with only these matters in my decision. During my site visit, the shopfront colour and window coverings appeared to have been completed in accordance with the plans before me.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is a detached building located on [address] which is currently occupied by a veterinarian practice. The Monken Hadley Conservation Area [name] (2007) splits the CA into 10 sub-areas, with the appeal site being within the [address] area. While the overall significance of the CA is derived from the green leafy character and low building density which stems from development in the 18th and 19th centuries, [address] is comparitively more urban in character.

The CA Character Appraisal Statement identifies that in the [address] area there is a greater demand for change and modernisation owing to the commercial environment. That being said, most rendered buildings have retained a colour palette which reflects subtle neutral colours, including white, cream, or grey. Where other colours are introduced, they are generally restricted to signage, awnings, window frames, or doors. This restrained colour palette defines the character of the CA. Barnet Design Guidance No 10 Shopfronts (the Design Guidance) identifies that shopfront colours should harmonise with the remainder of the buildings and the street, listing appropriate colours for traditional shopfronts and historic areas such as greens, blacks and browns. As such, it reinforces the importance of subtle neutral colours within the CA.

The shopfront has been painted in two different shades of purple and has retained a white band around the top of the façade. Although the perception of colours can be subjective, the Design Guidance is clear in highlighting that vibrant and garish colours are inappropriate in many areas. In this context, against the neutral colours of other buildings, the purple shopfront does stand out as being a garish colour which does not harmonise with the street scene. Despite the retention of the white fascia, it does not limit or lessen the impact of the two-tone purple colour which stands out as being inappropriate within the CA.

I acknowledge that the frontage reflects the corporate colours of the business which have been used within other CAs, and that the purple colour may aid relaxation for visiting dogs. However, I must have regard to the unique characteristics that form the significance of each CA individually. In this instance, the shopfront does not reflect the defining characteristics of the CA, and is disruptive to the pattern of neutral colours.

Transparent glazing has been retained on most of the shopfront allowing visibility between the reception and waiting area and the street, which has retained the sense of an active frontage. However, part of the shopfront has been obscured using vinyl applications to the windows, which has allowed the front of the building to be used as a clinical area, which understandably needs to remain private. Despite this, the addition of the vinyl window coverings has removed an element of activity at the front of the unit, which is not typical within the CA. I have not been provided with any evidence to show that alternative ways of maintaining privacy have been considered. As such, it has a negative effect on the character of the area.

Special attention should be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of CAs, and great weight should be given to their conservation. The garish colour of the shopfront together with the vinyl window sticker are not in keeping with the character or appearance of the area, and their cumulative impacts result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA.

The appellant has advanced several public benefits with which the less than substantial harm should be weighed against. The veterinary practice has occupied the building which may otherwise have been empty. I attach moderate weight to this benefit. Although painted, the alterations have retained the original details of the shopfront. This absence of harm carries neutral weight in my balance. These moderate and neutral public benefits would not outweigh the great weight to be attached to the conservation of heritage assets and the proposal would therefore conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Overall, the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would conflict with [name] and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2012) and Policies DM01 and DM06 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (2012) which seek to ensure that development respects local context and distinctive local character creating places and buildings of high quality design.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.