Appeal 6005010

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed replacement sash windows within front ground floor bay at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03603/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site location plan dated 20-Nov-2025; block plan at scale 1:500; proposed elevations dated 17.10.2025; section drawings by [name]; and the plans labelled – “Items 1-3” showing the window frames and means of opening.

The depths of reveal of all the replacement windows shall match the depths of reveal of the existing windows.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed new windows on the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area.

The host property is a ground floor flat within a three-storey property, it has a setback from the pavement edge behind a small forecourt and is part of a long row of similar terraced properties, which are situated on both sides of the road. The existing windows on the front side of the appeal property are within timber frames. The ground floor, single glazed, timber framed bay windows in question comprise two identical projecting diagonal sashes to either side of a larger central sash window. The photographs submitted by the appellant show some decay on parts of the interior of them, indicating that they are not in a good state of repair, at least in those areas. I saw on my site inspection that many of the nearby properties had the same ground floor front timber window design on their bays as the host property. Although not always obvious, I also observed that there were some properties nearby (on both sides of the road) that had ground floor bay windows in uPVC frames, with timber framed windows directly above them.

The Lambeth Design Guide Part 4, Building Alterations, Extensions, and Retrofit, dated August 2023 (LDG) says replacement windows on terraced properties which have common window details should match the original details. The LDG adds that such replacement windows should fit into the existing openings, have the same depth of reveal, along with replicating the same method of opening and frame dimensions. It also says the windows of individual flats are often identical to those within the whole building, to give a unity of design, and that replacement windows should be in keeping with the building’s appearance and detailing, and the materials should also match when part of a heritage asset.

The proposed replacement uPVC framed windows would fit neatly into the existing bay, replicating the same method of opening and glazing bar design. It is also noted that the proposed new windows would use slim mid rails and authentic putty lines, to reflect the appearance of the existing windows. Based on my site observations, the use of uPVC in this location, would not be out of character with the altered appearance of other properties in the immediate area, as such I am not persuaded that any replacement windows in this opening would have to be timber framed. Furthermore, given their setback behind the front forecourt, and the likely distance from the appeal property’s front side where the ground floor, first floor and second floor windows would all be seen together, the different window framed materials would not be easily discernible or particularly noticeable, nor would such an arrangement be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area.

It is noted that the proposed window design would mean the shallow front facing arch would be infilled. However, this is a minor part of the overall window design, and the size of the opening itself, including its surround would not change, nor would it be a dominant or conspicuous part of the appearance of the window. In addition, the proposed elevations adequately show the extent of how visible the box frame of the new windows would be, which is shown to be very similar to the existing windows.

In view of my findings above it was not necessary for me to compare the appeal proposal to the permission granted at no. [address], that was initially referred to by the appellant.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a satisfactory effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area, and comply with the relevant parts of policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, adopted September 2021, that amongst other things, require the design of alterations to respond positively to a building’s original architecture, be visually attractive, and sustain and reinforce local distinctiveness. The proposed development would also be consistent with the objectives of the LDG in terms of replacement windows, to positively improve and enhance the Borough.

The Council has said that the proposed development is some 50 metres or so from Brixton Conservation Area, although they have not identified any harmful effects upon its setting, and given the limited scale of the proposal, along with my findings above and site observations, I see no reason to disagree.

A standard implementation condition (1) has been imposed, along with a condition (2) listing the approved plans to provide certainty over what has been approved, although it was not necessary for the design and access statement to be conditioned as it is not a plan. To ensure the new windows have a matching depth of reveal to the existing windows, condition 3 is necessary, which will protect the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area.

Given that no works are proposed beyond the replacement of these front window frames within the existing bay, it was not necessary to condition that any other works to the exterior of the building are made good.

The proposed development accords with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.