Appeal 6002692

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement and relocation of main front door with a new black powder coated steel door, window alterations and new black powder coated roller shutter to main shopfront at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2652/P, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no 20007-01F.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, excluding the glazing, shall be constructed from black powder coated metal, as described within the application form.

The description of development as stated within the application form and decision notice differ and both fail to adequately describe the development shown on the submitted drawing. They omit any reference to the proposed alterations to the shop window. I have therefore amended the description of development used in my decision from that set out in the banner heading above, which has been taken from the application form. The amended description includes reference to the window alterations and has been agreed by both parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The appeal property lies within the Camden Town Conservation Area (CA) and as such I must have regard to Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special attention be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The CA encompasses the central commercial and residential area of Camden. The Camden Town Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] 2007 (CAAMS) identifies the appeal property as falling within Sub Area 1, characterised as a traditional wide shopping street with buildings reflecting diverse and changing architectural styles. Much of the original 1820’s and 1830’s [address] survives and the significance of the CA is derived from its overall 19th century architectural and historic character and appearance.

The appeal property is a two-storey building with a retail unit on the ground floor and storage above. The principal architectural framework features, including the pilasters, corbels and fascia dentil course, date from before 1903 with comparable examples evident at adjacent and nearby properties. These features are therefore contemporary with the defining and characteristic features of the CA. The CAAMS identifies the appeal property as a positive contributor to the CA, and there is a general presumption in favour of retaining its historic shopfront.

However, the existing shopfront elements proposed for replacement, including the timber window, tiled stall riser and recessed entrance doorway, date from the 1960s and therefore are comparatively modern features. The proposal would retain the historic 19th century architectural features of the shopfront and thus would not result in a loss of the building’s historic fabric.

While the CAAMS seeks to preserve, repair and, where appropriate, reinstate historic features that are integral to the CA’s special architectural character, it does not preclude change. It emphasises that alterations should be carefully managed to maintain the area’s distinctive and varied character. It also highlights that, even where historic buildings survive, successive alterations have resulted in little uniformity at ground level, with both timber and aluminium shopfronts now prevalent.

The shop entrance would be repositioned flush with the window. As illustrated by the 1903 photograph and archived plan records, the 19th century shop entrance also sat flush with the front elevation. Therefore, a recessed entrance was not a characteristic feature of the historic shopfront. Moreover, recessed entrances occur only intermittently and in varied forms within the street scene.

The proposal would replace the existing shop window, stall riser and recessed entrance with a black, powder coated metal shopfront incorporating lower bars to reflect the proportions of a stall riser. There are a wide variety of shopfront designs and materials in the locality, including stall risers of differing materials and heights, and fully glazed frontages. Therefore, the simple fully glazed design would not appear out of character with the building or the wider CA, where a diverse range of shopfronts exist.

The Council considers that the replacement of the existing solid external roller shutters with open-lath perforated shutters would be an improvement that would not harm the character or appearance of the CA.

While the Camden Town Conservation Area Advisory Committee has expressed support for the Council’s decision, it has provided no detailed representations or identified specific concerns. Accordingly, limited weight is afforded to its comments.

As set out above, the alterations would be limited to the mid-20th century shopfront features and would utilise design elements and materials commonly found in the area. Therefore, I conclude the proposal would not harm the special historic or architectural character of the 19th century [address] nor erode the building’s positive contribution to the CA.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not materially harm the character or appearance of the CA. In this instance the proposal would have a neutral effect on the CA and so would preserve its character and appearance, and as such, would satisfy the requirements of the Act. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not conflict with Policies D1, D2 and D3 of the Camden Local Plan 2017 which together seek high quality design in new and altered shopfronts which respects local context and character and preserves or enhances the historic environment.

The refusal reason cites general conflict with the London Plan 2021. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the proposal fails to comply with the relevant policies. I therefore find no conflict with the London Plan.

Conditions specifying the time limit for commencement, requiring compliance with the approved plans and the materials to be used are all necessary for reasons of certainty.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions specified.