Appeal 6005815

The appeal is dismissed.

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed shop front alterations on the character and appearance of the host building, the street scene of [address] and the Royal Hospital Conservation Area.

The appeal building is a shop currently occupied by Venchi. The site lies on the busy [address] shopping street and within the Royal Hospital Conservation Area (CA) which, in the vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by large, mostly fine, Georgian and Victorian buildings in red or yellow brick or painted stucco, its significance deriving primarily from its architecture and history. The built development is softened by street trees and, including opposite the appeal site, areas of vegetation in side streets. The Chelsea CA abuts the [name] in the vicinity of the appeal site which lies on the opposite side of [address].

Shops, pubs and restaurants occupy most of the ground floor units in this part of [address], some with traditional shopfronts, others more modern. However, the overriding impression is of cohesion and restraint. Most visual emphasis is inside shops, as seen through the windows, or on the fascias where shop names and other decorative features are evident. Taken together the fascias form a ribbon of visually active space above the shops. In contrast, the piers are mostly muted and with little adornment; either designed to match the background to the fascia and define the shopfront as a whole or to appear subordinate to the fascia. In either case they mostly provide subtle framing. Appeal Decision Ref: 6005815

Venchi sells chocolate products, including ice cream and also serves hot drinks. It has a plain, modern, off-white painted stucco/rendered shop front with wide piers and a matching fascia, with the shop name shown in a modest sign within it. It projects into the street at a slight angle, such that it is more visible on the approach from the CA to the north-east. Although the building lies at the edge of the CA, this visual link towards the CA roots it firmly within it. The shop front has extensive glazing through which the shop is clearly visible. At the time of my visit there was an attractive decorative display in the window of ice cream cones. The building is shown in the Royal Hospital Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA), 2016, (Fig. 2.7: [name]) as making a positive contribution to the historic and architectural character of the CA. Whilst the shop front itself is modern and I would not disagree with the conclusion set out in the appellant’s Heritage Statement that its effect is neutral, any alterations should not detract from the positive contribution of the building as a whole.

The proposed shopfront alterations include cladding to the piers. It is this to which the Council objects. No concerns are raised regarding other alterations comprising the removal of a blade sign and new glazing with new framing, including new door handles. I agree these aspects of the proposed development would be acceptable and I shall therefore restrict my further consideration to the proposed cladding on the piers.

The cladding would be installed on both piers. It would comprise brown painted three dimensional square panels in high-density polyurethane, mounted on a metal framework. In all it would project some 100mm from the façade of the property. The shop’s name, Venchi, would be included within the design just below fascia level on each side. The design is intended to reflect/mimic the chocolate for which the brand is known.

The piers are relatively wide and therefore the modern cladding would appear prominent on the façade and in the street scene. It would extend to the top of the fascia, which would result in a stark and uncharacteristic contrast. This would make it more conspicuous. The noticeable contrast between the pale, smooth fascia and dark, stylised chocolate block pattern on the projecting piers would further upset the framing effect of the existing shopfront, adding to the incongruous and unsympathetic appearance.

The appellant suggests that since other properties in the CA or nearby have a more modern appearance, the proposed cladding would not be out of place. However, although I saw other decorative materials, including tiles, brick and wood within the CA, these were mostly at fascia level or, where incorporated into piers, either subtle so as not to stand out from or compete with the fascia and building as a whole, or designed to blend with the fascia, thereby framing the shopfront. The proposed alterations, which would create a noticeably contemporary and contrasting effect on the prominent piers, would not therefore be readily comparable.

Overall, I consider that the proposed cladding, owing to its contemporary design, forward projection, stark contrast with the fascia and prominence in the street scene would make it stand out as a discordant addition to the host building and in the wider area. This would harm the visual amenity of the area and fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. It would, in consequence, result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA, which is a designated heritage asset. Appeal Decision Ref: 6005815

In accordance with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2024, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the NPPF sets out that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant suggests that public benefits would include advertising the business and thus keeping the building in active use, supporting the retail use of the building and thus providing a revenue stream to the Council and enabling the public appreciation of the goods sold. However, these are primarily private benefits to the current retailer. I have no evidence that the business is likely to suffer material economic harm if the alterations do not occur, and in my view the significant glazing to the frontage and active shop window provides ample opportunity for the public to appreciate the goods sold.

I therefore find that whilst there may be private benefits, any public benefits would be negligible and would not outweigh the great weight that should be given to the conservation of the CA as a designated heritage asset.

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed shop front alterations would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene of [address] and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. In consequence, it would conflict with Policies CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD10, CD14 and CD15 of the Council’s New Local Plan Review, July 2024. Taken together and amongst other things, these expect new development, including proposed shopfront alterations, to meet the highest standards of urban design, respect the existing context, character and appearance and relate well to the host and nearby buildings such that they have a positive visual impact on the appearance of the building and street scene. [name] shopfront alterations should preserve or enhance the character or appearance and the significance of the CA, thereby protecting the special architectural or historic interest of the area.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.