Appeal 6003429

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 Council has made reference to Policy DAA of the Ealing Draft Local Plan. While the draft Plan appears to have reached an advanced stage, I do not have details of the representations made to the relevant policies and whether any modifications to them are required. Therefore, at this stage I afford it limited weight in my consideration of this appeal

The description of development above is slightly amended from the original description on the application form, to account for a change to the design of the proposed entrance door during the application process.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the [address] (Haymills) Estate Conservation Area (the CA).

S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. At paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), it sets out matters which should be taken into account, including sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The CA consists of a planned estate built during the inter-war years comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The architecture of the dwellings varies, but they are generally located on large plots and constructed of brick with red tiled roofs. Although timber is the dominant material for windows and doors, there are examples of metal and uPVC frames. There are variations to the design of porches and front doors. Some properties possess garages; however, I observed on my site visit that some of these appear to have been converted. The CA derives considerable significance from the architectural quality and use of traditional materials. As a detached property situated in the heart of the CA the appeal site is visually prominent and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA due to its relatively unaltered form and architectural features characteristic of the CA.

The guidance contained in the [address] (Haymills) Estate Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) states that plastic window frames are not felt to be able to replicate the quality and appearance of original timber windows in the CA.

The property currently has white painted single glazed timber windows, which are visually prominent due to the proximity of the dwelling to the adjoining road. The traditional design of these windows is highly characteristic of the dwellings in this area, and is found throughout the dwelling, not just on the front. These make a positive contribution to the area.

Similarly, the uPVC windows at neighbouring dwellings are equally noticeable because of the choice of the materials and their contemporary design with clumsy detailing, including deeper reveals, generally heavier sections and mitred joints. As a result, these uPVC windows detract from the character and appearance of the CA where timber is the dominant material.

The proposed windows would match the profile, frame and glazing arrangement of the existing, which could be secured through submission of joinery details by condition. However, even with ‘timber effect’ uPVC, the homogenous ‘machine-made’ appearance of the plastic finish lacks the distinctive subtleties and texture of painted timber, particularly when viewed in immediate proximity. The appearance of the replacement windows would therefore appear materially different to the existing painted timber and in stark contrast to the traditional arrangements present at some dwellings in the surrounding area and would erode the architectural quality and appearance of the dwelling and its contribution to the CA.

Although this would be most evident on the front elevation, I also consider this to be the case with the windows to the side and rear as whilst these are less prominent elevations, they currently possess traditional windows which contribute positively to the CA.

The CAMP also outlines the value in the retention of other original features present at dwellings in the CA including resisting the infilling of original front recesses and the retention of garages. However, notwithstanding this guidance, I do not consider that the removal of the garage door is harmful in principle. I observed on my site visit that garage conversions were a characteristic of the area with several successfully carried out on [address]. The proposal would utilise matching brickwork and the proposed opening would respect the window proportions with regard to the width of the first-floor window above, as well as the height of the adjacent ground floor windows.

Turning to the infilling of the recess at the front of the appeal dwelling the appellant now proposes the reuse of the existing front door in line with the guidance in the CAMP. Whilst it would result in a more uniform footprint to the appeal dwelling, I do not consider its retention fundamental to preserving the character of the dwelling, as the key architectural features such as the front gable would be unaltered by this element of the proposal. This is also reflected in successful examples of infilling of the recess at other ‘[name] 2’ house types such as Nos 13, 18, 23 and 24.

Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above the use of uPVC windows in both the proposed window to infill the garage door and the windows incorporated in the infilling of the recess would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA due to their material choice.

[name] have identified that attractive joinery contributes to the architectural composition of the CA, the removal of the existing timber windows and replacement with uPVC timber-effect alternatives, and the use of uPVC windows for the other elements of the scheme would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

In reaching this view I am mindful that there are numerous examples of uPVC replacement windows close to the appeal site, which have diminished the period character of the respective properties. However, such examples do not justify the further incremental and harmful erosion of the historic fabric of the area, which limits the weight I afford these examples. Furthermore, the full planning circumstances of these examples have not been provided, so it has not been demonstrated that they are comparable to the appeal scheme. Accordingly, I give these examples only limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

Drawing the above together, whilst I do not consider the principal of the proposed entrance or replacement of the garage door to be harmful, the proposed use of uPVC timber-effect windows would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. As a result, the proposal would harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. In this instance, as it would only affect one dwelling in the CA, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, this is a matter of considerable weight and importance.

In accordance with the requirements of the Framework, less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. In this regard, the proposal would provide improved functional living space and accessibility for the occupiers however this is a private benefit, not a public benefit.

The appellant also contends that the proposal includes scope for environmental benefits including improving energy efficiency at the dwelling in line with the aims of the Framework. However, there is no substantive evidence of the extent of such improvements, or that the only way of securing such improvements to the host dwelling are through the scheme before me, limiting the weight I give this matter. Overall, therefore, I find that the public benefits put forward are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified.

Therefore, in relation to the windows, the proposal would conflict with Policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies 7.4, 7B and 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) which, amongst other things, require that development is of a high quality that conserves or enhances the significance of the CA.

The proposal would also conflict with the heritage and design policies of the Framework. Furthermore, it would conflict with Policy DAA of the draft Local Plan Development Management Policies, which requires new development to achieve a positive visual impact.

The appellant has suggested the possibility of issuing a split decision. [name] have not found harm against the principle of a garage conversion or the infilling of the existing recess, as outlined above, the use of uPVC windows in both elements would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA. The loss of timber windows and their replacement with uPVC alternatives throughout the building would be harmful and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Consequently, there are no individual, severable elements of the proposal that are acceptable in isolation, and I cannot recommend a split decision be issued.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to find otherwise. I therefore 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.