Appeal 6001693

The appeal is dismissed.

As reflected in the description in the banner heading, this appeal relates to a development that has already been undertaken. The shopfront I observed at my site visit reflected the details shown on the submitted plans, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The appeal site lies within the South Hampstead Conservation Area (the CA). Accordingly, the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies, which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The main issues are whether the development: • provides a suitable and accessible entrance for users; and • has an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site is a ground-floor commercial unit currently in use as a hair salon, positioned within a traditional terraced row whose upper floor front elevations are stepped relative to the street, yet retain consistent period fenestration and detailing. It lies on the west side of [address], close to [name] underground station.

Policy C6 of the Camden Local Plan 2017 (the CLP) seeks to ensure that development proposals provide safe, dignified and inclusive access for all users. CLP Policy D3 requires shopfront proposals to consider the degree of accessibility. The Camden Planning Guidance – Design (the CPGD) emphasises that alterations to shopfronts should be fully accessible to everyone, including a ramp where there is a change in level from pavement to shop floor, unless specific exceptions prevent this. The Camden Planning Guidance – Access for All (the CPGA) further expects all development, including alterations of existing buildings, to be inclusively designed and useable by all, and that works must not make access any worse than what previously existed.

The development incorporates a manually operated inward‐opening door, a stepped threshold, and relies on a portable ramp to be supplied by staff when required. In contrast, the Council’s evidence sets out that the previous arrangement included an automatic sliding door and a permanent external ramp providing step‐free, independent access. Although this arrangement is no longer present, the Council’s photographs support this position.

The appellant and a significant number of interested parties argue that the current arrangement has improved accessibility, as the entrance has been relocated to a shallower part of the pavement slope and the step reduced, and because staff now provide a portable ramp. These views are genuinely expressed and reflect personal experiences. However, portable ramps do not offer a fully independent form of access and require staff assistance, which can act as a barrier for those with mobility needs. Furthermore, I am provided with no substantive evidence to demonstrate why a permanent and policy-compliant solution is not feasible in this case. I therefore attach limited weight to the claimed accessibility improvements.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development fails to provide a suitable and accessible entrance for users, and conflicts with the objectives of [name] C6 and D3, the aims of which have previously been set out.

The CA is described by the [name] and [name] (CAMS), as a well-preserved example of a leafy, predominantly residential Victorian suburb, characterised by large, semi-detached and terraced Victorian properties, consistent materials, and distinctive elevational features. It features limited commercial and civic buildings, including historic shopfronts focussed along key routes, which add local interest without undermining its primarily residential character. Insofar as is relevant to the appeal, the significance of the CA is derived from the traditional proportions and consistent materials of its buildings that positively contribute to its character and appearance.

The development comprises a full‐height, frameless glazed frontage with the entrance door positioned to one side. The CPGD expressly discourages large expanses of undivided glazing, highlighting the importance of retaining traditional subdivided shopfronts whose proportions relate to the host building’s established form. The CAMS further identifies the parade at 169–[address], which includes the appeal site, as already undermined by the loss of historic shopfronts and poorly designed modern replacements, making it particularly vulnerable to further incremental erosion of character.

Within this context, the development’s contemporary frameless approach conflicts with these established principles. The appellant has cited other examples on [address] as precedents, supported by photographs, and a number of interested parties echo the view that similar shopfronts already exist. However, the Council’s evidence indicates that many of these either lack formal consent or were not constructed in the form approved, meaning they do not establish a reliable precedent. In any event, each proposal must be determined on its own merits and with reference to its specific considerations and context. The presence of other modern shopfronts, whether authorised or not, does not remove the requirement to preserve or enhance the CA’s significance, nor does it justify further erosion.

Based on the available evidence, the development has removed the former shopfront’s structural framing and introduced a visually dominant expanse of glazing that appears incongruous and unsympathetic relative to the host building and the wider CA. I therefore conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, and fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies D1, D2 and D3 of the CLP, which collectively seek high‐quality design that responds to context, respects heritage significance, and secures traditional shopfront principles.

The harm to the significance of the CA is less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant and many of the supporting comments cite accessibility improvements as the principal benefit. However, as previously set out, the current arrangement does not provide a meaningful or policy‐compliant accessibility enhancement. Consequently, I afford this only limited weight.

The other benefits cited in the public representations relate to perceptions of improved appearance, the popularity of the business, and the social value associated with retaining a well‐liked independent premises. These matters, while clearly important to customers, amount to largely private or subjective benefits. Several comments refer to economic benefits and the potential impact of refusal on the business, but no substantive evidence has been provided demonstrating that the viability of the business depends on retaining the unauthorised shopfront. As such, these matters do not amount to the necessary public benefits required by the Framework, nor do they relate to enhancing the CA’s significance.

Accordingly, even when taken together, and acknowledging the large number of supporting comments, the identified benefits do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA, given the great weight that must be given to its conservation. The development therefore fails the test set out in paragraph 215 of the Framework.

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