Appeal 6004963

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against City of Westminster Council, and this is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal was initially made against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission, and it was invalid on receipt. The Council subsequently issued a decision prior to the appeal being made valid, therefore the appeal has progressed as being made against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appellant has had the opportunity to make representations through the appeal process following the refusal of planning permission. I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced, therefore I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.

The Council’s decision notice lists the plans and documents on which it determined the application. The appellant has submitted revised plans referenced ‘[name] with the appeal, which they state were submitted during the course of the application, and requests that the appeal is determined with regard to these. These show the location of a new gas meter below a window opening to the front elevation of the property, with no other apparent changes to the proposed window and door details. Despite some reference within the submissions, the description of the proposed development does not refer to a gas meter, or any other works. My assessment has been made on the basis of the above description relating to the replacement of the existing windows and front door and as shown on the plans determined by the Council and not those submitted with the appeal. The original description of development also reflects that used by the Council in determining the application.

I observed at my site visit that new windows had already been installed throughout the appeal property, as well as a new front door and double doors to the rear. A small window to a bathroom was also evident, although this does not appear to be shown on the submitted plans. Notwithstanding that works have been carried out, as I cannot be sure that what has taken place on site is in accordance with the submitted details, my assessment has been made having regard to the plans and information submitted with the application, and I will return to these submissions in my reasoning below.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area; and • the significance of the nearby Belgravia Conservation Area (the CA), a designated heritage asset, through development within its setting.

The appeal property comprises a ground floor residential flat situated within a larger building of predominantly residential development. The building is in a prominent position fronting [address] with its side elevations turning into [address] and [address]. It includes ground floor commercial units with shop fronts facing [address] adjacent to entrances for the flats. There is consistency to the form and architectural detailing of the larger building, including its fenestration and balconies to [address]. Given these features, its prominent position and scale, the building contributes positively to the overall character and appearance of the area alongside the form of other larger buildings.

The main entrance door and a window of the appeal property are set back from and face the main [address] street frontage. Other windows to the rear of the property face onto an enclosed garden and small external space. The boundary walls of the garden area, and existing planting growing above them, limit full views of the windows and doors of the appeal property from [address]. However, the planting would not screen the area at all times of the year, and the predominantly uniform appearance of the windows to the upper levels of the larger building is apparent from this street. There is also consistency in the materials and appearance of windows to the adjacent building to the rear of the appeal property that extends along [address].

There is limited detail before me of the previous windows and doors that have been replaced on the existing plans and within the submissions. The application form refers to “[name] [name] 1 Glass/[name]”. The proposed plans submitted under both revisions B and C also provide limited detail of the proposed development, with reference made on the elevation plans of both to the Design and [name] (DAS) for the windows, and that the front door would be painted black. The DAS submitted with the appeal refers to replacement of the existing windows with “new units that match the current appearance on a like-for-like basis for the street facing elevation”, and replacements to the rear will follow a similar design and proportion, with the potential use of aluminium frames.

The Heritage Statement and [name] both refer to timber for the street-facing front window, and aluminium or timber for the rear garden-facing windows, with the latter referencing the use of double/triple glazing. These also refer to the repainting of the front door from white to black, rather than replacement. In addition, three different versions1 of proposed window and door details have been provided, including one not referenced on the Council’s decision notice. These all show different designs for the proposed development, including in respect of the glazing pattern, and also differ from details shown on the proposed elevation drawings.

Given the varying design options, the references to the use of timber/aluminium and double/triple glazing, as well as the lack of section drawings showing design detail such as glazing bars and space between glass, I am not satisfied that the submissions sufficiently show what is proposed. In addition, due to the limited detail of what previously existed, despite the appellant’s suggestion, the application does not adequately demonstrate that the development would match the materials and finishes of those replaced, or that they would be ‘like-for-like’ replacements.

In the absence of sufficient and detailed information to clearly demonstrate the appearance and form of the previous windows and what is proposed, it is not possible to conclude that the development would be sympathetic to, and appropriate for, the appeal property and the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, whilst there are more limited views to the rear, I am not satisfied that the development would avoid harm with regard to diminishing the general uniformity of the fenestration within the larger building and avoid harm to the townscape in this area.

Notwithstanding the works that have taken place, the submissions fail to provide sufficient information to enable me to fully assess the proposed development and its effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area. The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policies 42 and 45 of the City of Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (January 2026) (the CP). Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to positively contribute to Westminster’s townscape and streetscape having regard to the character and appearance of the existing area, and to respect the character of the existing building.

The appeal property, and the larger building that it forms part of, are located outside of, but reasonably close to the CA, with its boundary running down the length of [address]. The Belgravia Conservation Area Audit highlights that Belgravia remains of historic significance as a planned aristocratic residential quarter, an example of high-class, early 19th century speculative development on an unprecedented scale, which influenced other similar developments in [name]. Its significance, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, therefore derives from its architectural and historic interest. The appeal property is close to part of the CA that has a mixed townscape, with residential and commercial development contributing to a busy, vibrant character. 1 Ultimate Glass Solutions Ltd: 114-1-v3 dated 11 July 2025, 114-4-v4 dated 20 July 2025 and 114-5-v3 dated 20 July 2025.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

Due to its scale and prominent position, the main frontage of the building is clearly seen in views into and out of the CA along [address]. Although recessed, the front door and window of the appeal property are visible as part of the frontage of the larger building, its detailing and fenestration. In this context, due to its location and the degree of intervisibility, the larger building and the appeal property are within the setting of the CA.

Given its scale, prominence and architectural detailing, the larger building, particularly its frontage, makes a positive contribution to the setting of the CA. However, due to its limited scale and recessed position, the front elevation of the appeal property forms a small part of the overall building and at a greater distance from the boundary with the CA than other parts. Consequently, the front of the property makes a limited contribution to the setting of the CA. Whilst it forms part of the larger building, due to its position and enclosure, the rear of the appeal property is not seen in direct views to or from the CA, and potential visual effects would be more localised in the townscape in this area. The rear part of the appeal property therefore makes a very limited contribution to the setting of the CA.

As the proposed development would primarily be seen in views along the front of the larger building on [address] and from [address], there would be limited direct intervisibility with views into and out of the CA. [name] cannot rule out harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and the immediate area, given the position of the development on the appeal property, and in the context of the larger building, notwithstanding the current lack of clarity and detail before me, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would harm the significance of the CA as a whole.

For the above reasons, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in harm to, or loss of, the significance of the CA due to development in its setting, or that it would conflict with Policies 42 and 44 of the CP in respect of this main issue. Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to have regard to heritage assets and ensure heritage assets and their settings are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

I note the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider as part of this planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposed development.

Notwithstanding my conclusion in respect of the setting of the CA, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area. It therefore conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.