Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA
London Borough of Wandsworth — appeal split decision
- Outcome
- Split Decision
- Decision date
- 19 August 2021
- Authority
- London Borough of Wandsworth
- Inspector
- Jarvis P
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Other minor developments
- Appellant
- Mrs Trish O’Connor
- Agent
- RJS Planning
- LPA reference
- 2020/1364
- ONS LPA code
- E09000032
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 11 November 2020
Summary AI
The appeal for the installation of replacement uPVC windows at 32 Ingelow Road, London SW8 3QA has been partially allowed and partially dismissed. Planning permission has been granted for the rear elevation, but refused for the front elevation due to concerns about the impact on the conservation area's character and appearance.
PDF text
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 May 2021 by P B Jarvis BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/W/20/3257611 Maisonette first and second floor 32 Ingelow Road, London SW8 3QA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Trish O’Connor against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref 2020/1364, dated 14 April 2020, was refused by notice dated 10 June 2020. • The development is to replace existing windows with traditional range, sash windows with wood grain effect finish. Procedural Matter 1. The windows have already been installed therefore retrospective permission is sought. The Council amended the description to “installation of replacement uPVC windows to front and rear first floor elevations.” I note that the rear windows affected include those on the second floor. 2. The updated National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 20 July 2021. I have referred to this where relevant. Decision 3. The appeal is part allowed and part dismissed.
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — Appeal Decision Planning permission is refused for the installation of replacement uPVC windows to first floor front elevation. Planning permission is granted for replacement uPVC windows to rear, at maisonette first and second floor, 32 Ingelow Road London SW8 3QA in accordance with the terms of application ref: 2020/1364 dated 14 April 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted, which for the avoidance of doubt only relates to the installation of uPVC windows to the rear first floor elevation, shall relate to the following plans: A1-001 (Location and site plan), A1-100 (Existing floor plans), A1-101 (Existing elevations), A1-200 (Proposed floor plans options 2), A1-201 (Proposed elevations and sections). Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the Parktown Estate Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises the first and second floors of a terraced Victorian property located within a residential street. The adjoining properties within the terrace are of similar appearance with bay fronted windows. The front windows https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W5780/W/20/3262194 are arched in shape reflecting the decorative brick arch above which is itself accentuated by the stone banding above the ground floor windows. The appeal property is within a terrace of nine properties which have this particular detailing and appearance. 6. The windows that have been installed are high quality with an appearance that closely replicates the original timber windows with narrow frames and sash openings. However, those installed in the front elevation have a ‘flat’ head, which does not reflect the attractive arched window design. In my view the arched window design with brick arch above is an integral and attractive feature of the appeal property and those within the terrace which it adjoins and which are of very similar appearance. 7. The Park Town Conservation Appraisal and Management Strategy (2010) (AMS) notes that windows are generally vertical sliding single-glazed timber sashes with the patterns distinctive to the different terraces in the streets in the conservation area the unity of which is important to maintain. 8. The appellant has referred to a number of properties where uPVC windows of varying design have been installed.
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — Appeal Decision The Council has confirmed that the majority of these were installed some years ago and are now immune from enforcement action. In any event, most of these are not within the immediate street scene context of the appeal site. However, unsympathetic uPVC windows of inappropriate ‘flat’ head shape and design have been installed at numbers 40 and 46. Nevertheless, the majority of the properties within this terrace retain the distinctive arched window shape and overall the character of the terrace is maintained and in my opinion should be conserved. 9. The windows in the rear elevation are of a different shape which is reflective of the original window opening. Given this and that they are of high quality finish, they are not unacceptable in these circumstances. A condition to refer to the approved plans will be necessary for the avoidance of doubt. 10.
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — Appeal Decision Therefore, I find that, in respect of the windows in the front elevation, there is conflict with Policies DMS1, DMS2 and DMH5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies (2016) which seek high quality sustainable design, ensure the conservation and where appropriate, enhancement of the significance, appearance and character of heritage assets and the surrounding historic environment, and that features that contribute to appearance and character are considered. For these reasons there is also conflict with the AMS and the Council’s Housing SPD (2016). 11. In respect of the Framework, I find that the front windows result in a less than substantial level of harm. Paragraph 202 states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. Whilst noting the benefits to energy efficiency, I do not consider that the harm is outweighed in this instance. Conclusions 12. Overall, for the reasons set out, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Maisonette First and Second Floor, 32 Ingelow Road, LONDON, SW8 3QA — London Borough of Wandsworth — P Jarvis INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶10
The inspector found that the uPVC windows in the front elevation conflicted with policies seeking high-quality sustainable design, conservation, and enhancement of heritage assets and the surrounding historic environment.
Character and appearance For appellant ¶9
The inspector found that the uPVC windows in the rear elevation were acceptable due to their high-quality finish and the fact that they reflect the original window opening.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| DMS1, DMS2, DMH5, Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management Policies (2016) |
Determinative |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 19 August 2021 under the Open Government Licence.