Appeal 6000564

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of the proposed development was altered during the course of the planning application and I have used this amended description in this decision notice.

It is noted that the appeal property is the subject of a separate appeal against an [name] (Council reference: ENF/0045/25).

The majority of the alterations to the shopfront have already taken place, although it is noted that the development is ‘part-retrospective’ as the appellant states that further works would be undertaken to enhance the external finish of the appeal property. As the proposed plans are different to the currently installed shop front I shall consider the submitted plans rather than the extent of works undertaken on site.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and street scene, with particular regard to the Monken Hadley Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal relates to a pharmacy located in a prominent position on the [address], close to the junction with [address]. [address] features a number of businesses including shops, cafes and estate agents.

The appeal property is located in the [name]. I have therefore had regard to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which places a duty upon the decision-maker, in the exercise of planning functions, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) further advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The CA has an urban feel, with the [address] built in a tight, compact grain. Whilst the area was busy with shoppers, there were a number of vacant / empty shops in the vicinity of the appeal property with some frontages in disrepair. I saw on my site visit that there are a variety of shop fronts, with some retaining decorative Victorian features and traditional architectural details such as glazing bars. Equally, there are also examples of shop fronts that have been modernised, some in keeping with the CA and some less so. This is also recognised in the Monken Hadley Conservation Area Character [name] ([name] 2007) (the ‘[name]) which highlights the importance of preserving traditional shopfronts. The CA Statement also notes the presence of intrusive features on the [address]. The CA Statement was adopted in 2007 and I am cognisant that the [address] has evolved since this time.

I can see from the evidence before me that before the alterations to the frontage of the pharmacy were made that it had a more traditional appearance, featuring traditional stall risers and a recessed central doorway and awning. The alterations to the shop frontage have introduced a flat aluminium frontage with large glazed panels. The entrance door to the pharmacy is no longer recessed and an additional door has been added to access the first floor. The design is non-descript and devoid of any traditional design elements. These alterations represent a loss of architectural detailing that previously made a positive contribution to the CA.

It is noted that the additional door, added to the shop front, is to allow access to the first floor of the appeal property. However, two commercial style doors on such a small shop front appears cluttered and unbalanced. Whilst the first floor of the property may be converted to residential use in the future, this does not influence or add any weight in favour of the proposed design as conversion to residential use does not form part of this planning proposal. The appellant has pointed out that two of the properties opposite the site feature two door arrangements. However, they are very different in design to the appeal property, with wider frontages that are balanced and include more residential style doorways used to access each first floor. In addition, I saw on my site visit that apart from handful of examples, two door arrangement is not a common feature within the majority of shopfronts in the area.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to No. 192 – 194 [name] which is found adjacent to the appeal property. This has recently had an updated shop front installed. At the time of my site visit No. 192 – 194 was vacant, but was formerly a restaurant. I acknowledge there are some similarities to the design of the proposed shopfront, most noticeably the large glazed panels. Nonetheless, the frontage of this neighbouring property is much wider and only features one door.

The appellant has suggested that the introduction of plinths to the base of doors and windows and painting the aluminium frames would help provide visual consistency with the neighbouring property and assimilate the appeal property into the street scene. It is noted that the appellant offers a condition which could be imposed to detail the paint colour. However, whilst these measures may help to mitigate the adverse impact of the modern shopfront, they would result in only modest improvements to the installed shopfront and would do little to reduce the harm to the CA.

The appellant has outlined that the new shop front arrangement has widened the main shop doorway and removed a step. There is disagreement between the Council and the appellant as to whether the previous shop front had a step. The plans submitted with the planning application clearly show a step up into the shop. On this basis I am content that this was the case. The new arrangement is step-free and accords with guidance on accessibility, representing an improvement in terms of access. However, whilst improved accessibility is a public benefit of the development, this could have been achieved through other small-scale measures and did not require the complete replacement of the shopfront.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the street scene and the surrounding area and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA in conflict with Section 72 of the Act. The proposal would be contrary to Policy D3 and Policy HC1 of The London Plan (2021) which, amongst other things seek to ensure development enhances character, responds to local context and conserves and avoids harm to heritage assets. It would also be contrary to Policy CDH01 and CDH08 of the London Borough of Barnet Local Plan (2025) and the Framework which seek to ensure development responds sensitively to local character and preserve and enhance the character of conservation areas.

The proposal would also be contrary to guidance in the London Borough of Barnet Design Guidance No.10: Shopfronts. Whilst this document does not explicitly reference features of the development, it seeks to ensure shop fronts enhance the street which I have found the development does not. The proposal would also be contrary to guidance in the [name] which seeks to retain original features and details.

I am satisfied that the harm to the CA would be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ harm. In finding ‘less than substantial’ harm paragraph 215 of the Framework states that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Improved accessibility has been identified as a public benefit of the development, but this can only be afforded limited weight and does not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA.

The appellants wish to optimise and secure the current pharmacy use of the building is understood and it is noted that the Council have found no harm with regard to living conditions. However, these are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and do not diminish the harm that I have found on the main issue.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.