53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2025 by M Clowes BA (Hons) MCD PG CERT (Arch Con) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 December 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/X5210/W/25/3371504 53 Lithos Road, London NW3 6EY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ganiyu Laniyan [Shian Housing Association Ltd] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Camden. • The application Ref is 2025/1773/P. • The development proposed is the replacement of single glazed timber frame window and doors on flank elevation and window on rear elevation with double glazed uPVC frame windows and doors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council altered the description of development on its decision notice from that contained on the planning application form. This incorrectly stated that the proposed development included replacement windows to the front elevation of the appeal site. In the banner heading above, I have used the description suggested by the Council in its statement of case.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision It more accurately describes the proposal which relates to replacement windows and doors in the flank elevation and a replacement window in the rear elevation only. I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. This appeal is one of 6 proposals for the replacement of timber framed windows within different properties that form part of the Lithos Road Estate. Each appeal has been considered separately and independently of one another, although there are common themes and repetition within my reasoning. Main Issues 4. The main issues in relation to this appeal are i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and wider area and ii) whether the proposal is an environmentally sustainable form of development. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The appeal site comprises a ground floor flat within a block of flats known as Juniper House. It is symmetrical in appearance with 2 other houses with which it forms a terrace. The terrace has a strong architectural rhythm and harmony arising from the repeated use of projecting balconies to the front. It visually relates to other buildings within the purpose-built 20th century housing estate.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision The estate has its own distinct character in contrast to the traditional terraces located further along https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision The estate has its own distinct character in contrast to the traditional terraces located further along https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/X5210/W/25/3371504 Lithos Road to the north-east. As a component part of a larger housing block and wider terrace, the appeal site contributes positively to the overall appearance of the housing estate and wider area. 6. The Camden Planning Guidance; Design (CPGD) 2021, emphasises the importance of materials to the architectural design of a building, noting that the use of poor-quality or an unsympathetic palette of materials can diminish the quality of a well-designed building. The Home Improvements Camden Planning Guidance (HICPG) 2021, expands on this by strongly discouraging the use of uPVC windows for aesthetic and environmental reasons. Such guidance applies regardless of whether a particular site is a designated heritage asset or located within one. I will return to the environmental considerations in the second main issue below. 7. The installation of double glazing is not disputed per se, and the CPGD and HICPG do not prohibit the use of uPVC altogether.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision The more contemporary architectural language of the appeal site and the wider housing estate, whilst providing flexibility in material choice does not automatically render uPVC acceptable, given the implications for the proportions of the resultant windows. It is therefore important to assess the specific context of the appeal site. 8. Notwithstanding that there are other buildings and dwellings nearby which have uPVC windows, within the housing estate, timber windows and patio doors are the prevalent and original material. With the exception of Sequioa House1, I am advised that no planning permissions have been granted for the replacement of timber windows and doors with uPVC alternatives within the estate. This includes those that appear to have been installed within the remainder of the Juniper House block. 9. Although the proposed window and door frames would have a woodgrain finish and similar opening arrangements, they would have chunkier frames and a more uniform finish that would be distinguishable from existing timber frames. Despite this noticeable change, the flank elevation is not particularly prominent in public views being at the head of the road and to the side.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision The open-sided canopy, railings and soft landscaping provide a degree of separation and features for the eye to rest on, before reaching the window and door openings. The proposed windows would not be seen in connection with those in the adjacent Mahogany House in public views. 10. Although the change in framing material would contrast with the prevalent use of timber throughout the estate, its use in a discreet location would not harm the character and appearance of the area overall. The window in the rear elevation would be screened from open view from Lithos Road by a rear lean-to projection and a boundary wall, such that there would be limited if any, visual harm from this element of the proposal. 11. The Council has referred me to 2 appeals at Kilburn High Road for the dismissal of uPVC windows2. However, that site related to an attractive historic building in a prominent corner position such that I do not find it to have a comparable context. 12. For the above reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to the host building and the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with 1 uPVC windows were granted under appeal reference APP/X5210/W/24/3349805.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision 2 Appeal decisions APP/X5210/C/22/3305743 and APP/X5210/W/22/3302064. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision 2 Appeal decisions APP/X5210/C/22/3305743 and APP/X5210/W/22/3302064. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X5210/W/25/3371504 Policy D1 of the Camden Local Plan (CLP) 2017 and Policy 2 of the Fortune Green and West Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan (NP) 2015. Together these policies, amongst other things, require developments to comprise details and materials that are of a high quality and complement the local character. Sustainability 13. Policy CC1 of the CLP requires all development to minimise the effects of climate change and encourages all developments to meet the highest feasible environmental standards that are financially viable during construction and occupation. It supports and encourages sensitive energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings through criterion (d). I have not been led to a specific definition of what would constitute a ‘sensitive’ energy improvement. However, in the first main issue above I have not found harm with regard to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 14. Nonetheless, criterion (f) of Policy CC1 expects all developments including refurbishments, to optimise resource efficiency by using materials with low embodied carbon content, even if it is deemed to be a sensitive energy efficient improvement3.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision The explanatory text to the policy explains that embodied carbon is the carbon impact associated with the production, transport, assembly, use and disposal of materials. It does not include the carbon emissions associated with the energy used for heating, lighting or cooling in the completed building. 15. Therefore, the increase in the Standard Assessment Procedure rating for the energy efficiency of the dwellings by 5 points and the high thermal performance of the proposed windows whilst important (U-value of 1.1 W/m²K), is not the only or primary concern of the policy. The suggested reduction in energy consumption relies on assumptions of energy sources for the building and does not take into account actual usage of the residents within the appeal site, such that I do not find it a credible calculation. 16. In any event, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed uPVC windows and doors would have a better thermal performance than other material choices such as timber, or that they could not address the water ingress, decay and draught penetration the appellant reports.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision No specific evidence has been submitted to substantiate the appellant’s claim that uPVC is durable, recyclable and has a lower embodied carbon footprint compared to FSC-certified hardwood. 17. In contrast, the HICPG strongly discourages uPVC windows for environmental reasons. It states that timber window frames have a lower embodied carbon content than uPVC and aluminium versions, including emissions from extraction, refinement, transportation and processing. The CPGD also references the inability of uPVC to biodegrade. 18. To support this position, the Council has also provided numerous academic and other independent studies that recognise timber as a sustainable material that with maintenance, can last longer than uPVC4. The Roma Tre University review found that wooden frames generally have low levels of embodied energy and carbon 3 As set out in paragraphs 8.17 and 8.18 of the explanatory text to Policy CC1 of the CLP. 4 Including but not limited to, ‘Embodied Energy and Embodied GWP if Windows: A Critical Review’ by Asdrubali et al of the Department of Engineering, Roma Tre University 2021; ‘Double or Triple Glazing?

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision All Pane and No Gain?’ by Circular Ecology 2014 and ‘Whole Life Analysis of Timber, Modified Timber and Aluminium Clad Timber Windows’ by the Institute of Building and Urban Design at Heriot-Watt University 2013 as provided at appendices F-H of the Council’s Statement of Case. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision All Pane and No Gain?’ by Circular Ecology 2014 and ‘Whole Life Analysis of Timber, Modified Timber and Aluminium Clad Timber Windows’ by the Institute of Building and Urban Design at Heriot-Watt University 2013 as provided at appendices F-H of the Council’s Statement of Case. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X5210/W/25/3371504 dioxide emissions, relative to their production processes. uPVC windows in contrast were found to be more energy intensive and responsible for high emissions of harmful by-products such as hydrocarbons, dioxins, vinyl chloride, phthalates and heavy metals. Wood is consistently attributed by the academic and other sources as having the lowest embodied energy and the best environmental performance. They therefore reinforce what the guidance within the HICPG and CPGD seeks to achieve in conjunction with Policy CC1 of the CLP. 19. The appellant has not sought to dispute the findings of these studies nor provided a specific comprehensive assessment on resource efficiency/embodied carbon energy of the proposed windows, compared to possible timber or other alternatives. For this reason, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would optimise resource efficiency by using a material with a low embodied carbon content as required by Policy CC1. 20. I have reached a different conclusion on the scheme’s compliance with Policy CC1 of the CLP to the Inspector in the Sequoia House appeal5.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision This policy requires all 6 of the first criteria to be satisfied to demonstrate appropriate climate change mitigation, not just whether it amounts to sensitive energy efficiency improvements6. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the expectations for new development as described in the supporting text to Policy CC1 have been met. My findings on this issue are consistent with the Inspector for the Kilburn High Road appeals. 21. I find that the proposal would not be a sustainable form of development and it would conflict with Policy CC1 of the CLP, as set out above. Other Matters 22. The Council previously permitted aluminium replacement windows in Laurel and Sandalwood House’s. I have not been provided with any information other than the decision notice and plans which explains the reasons that the Council came to these decisions. Be that as it may, aluminium is a different material to uPVC such that the proposals are not like for like. The decisions were also made prior to the adoption of the HICPG and CPGD. This does not affect my findings. 23. A petition has been submitted in support of this proposal including signatories from different houses within the estate.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision Support for a proposal does not indicate a lack of harm but I recognise the benefits that the proposal would have to the residents from improved thermal insulation, security and noise reduction. However, I am not satisfied based on the evidence presented, that such benefits could not be achieved by alternative replacement windows. Neither has it been demonstrated that ongoing maintenance or other alterations such as secondary glazing could not provide similar benefits to the residents. This attracts limited weight. Conclusion 24. I have found that the proposed development would in this particular context, not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. The absence of harm is however, neutral in the planning balance. The limited benefits of the scheme in this instance do not outweigh the harm identified in respect of sustainability and the associated conflict with the development plan. 5 Appeal reference APP/X5210/W/24/3349805. 6 As indicated in the wording of Policy CC1 with ‘and’ linking criterion a-e with f. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X5210/W/25/3371504 There are no considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

53 Lithos Road, LONDON, NW3 6EY — London Borough of Camden — M Clowes INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5