Retrospective application for replacement windows and garage door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 01 April 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002143 33 Hyde Park Gardens Mews, City of Westminster, London W2 2NX • 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 G Dewhirst against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref is 25/06114/FULL. • The development proposed is described as “retrospective application for replacement windows and garage door”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. From my site visit I saw that the development had been completed. The development appears to be in accordance with what is shown on the submitted plans, and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Bayswater Conservation Area (BCA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The courts have held that to ‘preserve’ does not prevent change but instead means to maintain overall character. 6. The BCA is characterised by its 19th century terraced housing and accompanying mews houses, which would have functioned as stable accommodation before its residential conversion. The mews properties within the BCA, including Hyde Park Garden Mews, are modest two storey buildings of brick construction. Repeated fenestration and architectural features including attractive joinery in the form of timber sash windows with small panes and door surrounds creates a strong, cohesive rhythm to the area. This is enhanced by the consistency of facing Appeal Decision 6002143 2 materials. This spatial composition and architectural quality make a substantial contribution to the significance of the BCA. As a property situated in the heart of the mews, the appeal site shares many of the characteristic features and therefore contributes positively to the character and appearance of the BCA. 7. There are numerous examples of uPVC replacement windows and horizontal garage doors close to the appeal site, including examples on listed buildings which may have diminished the period character of the respective properties. The appellant advises that enforcement action is ongoing in relation to some of these, so they may therefore be change in future. Others are immune from enforcement action due to time elapsed, however it has not been demonstrated that they have been tolerated by the Council, indeed it appears that the Council may not have been aware of those instances until recently. 8. While the appellant states that some other examples in the street were found acceptable or not expedient to enforce against, I do not know the reasons for those decisions. In particular, it is unclear what the properties looked like before or what other considerations were before the Council, which would have affected its planning assessment. It has not therefore been demonstrated that they were comparable to the circumstances of the scheme before me. 9. In any event, such examples have resulted in incremental and harmful erosion of the historic fabric of the area and have served to undermine the original degree of uniformity of the mews. Consequently, they have degraded the character and appearance of this part of the BCA and are not desirable examples to replicate. 10. The Council indicates in its enforcement investigations1 that prior to the works replacing the existing windows and garage door, the appeal dwelling possessed traditional timber windows and a steel garage door with vertical panelling. The existing elevations provided by the appellant indicate that the previous timber windows had slender frames in a sash style divided by slim glazing bars. The ground floor windows also possessed fanlights above separated by glazing bars creating a symmetry at the appeal dwelling. The dwelling would previously have made a greater positive contribution to the BCA than it does now, as a result of these traditional architectural details. 11. In contrast, the replacement windows lack finesse, with chunky frames in a non- traditional arrangement as well as the addition of trickle vents which create a cluttered appearance. While the textured appearance may bear some resemblance to painted timber, it does not mitigate the bulky appearance of the frames. In addition, glazing bars are entirely absent which has resulted in the windows contrasting markedly with the small pane, thin framed traditional windows at other mews properties. I note that there is an absence of consistency in glazing bars to the properties on Hyde Park Mews. However, for the reasons given above such examples of unsympathetic change do not justify the further incremental and harmful erosion of the historic fabric and character of the area. 12. The vertical panelled ‘up-and-over’ style steel garage door has been replaced with a horizontal panelled roller style door. While the material remains consistent, the replacement lacks the vertical composition and finish of its predecessor, and therefore stands out in comparison to the more traditional vertical emphasis of most garage doors in the street. I note that the garage door of the neighbouring property 1 25/82797/M and 25/83389/M Appeal Decision 6002143 3 has also been changed, however this also stands out, and repeating this non- traditional form has further degraded the appearance of this part of the BCA. 13. The replacement windows and garage door are therefore a stark contrast to the traditional arrangements found on other properties which make a positive contribution to the BCA. The removal of the attractive detailing to fenestration which contributed to the architectural composition of the BCA and the previous garage door, and their replacement with alternatives of poorer appearance has eroded the architectural quality and appearance of the dwelling and its contribution to the BCA. Consequently, even though it is seen in context with other non-traditional windows and doors, nevertheless, the development has not preserved or enhanced the character or appearance of the BCA. Nor is it justified by the other poor-quality examples in the area, for the reasons set out above. 14. Given the scale and nature of the development, the harm to the significance of the BCA as a whole is at the lower end of less than substantial, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nevertheless, this is a matter which I give considerable weight and importance. The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. 15. An upgraded property that is more energy and thermally efficient will have some public benefit in terms of tackling climate change, which is supported in national and local policy. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the only way of securing such improvements to the host dwelling are through the scheme before me. Furthermore, I have no detailed information before me regarding the amount of improvement to efficiency and environmental benefits that have resulted from the development, limiting the weight I give these matters. 16. The change in the garage door opening style means it no longer projects out from the dwelling when open. However, given the nature of the Mews, vehicles will be travelling at low speeds and drivers and pedestrians would expect garage doors to open at times. They would therefore have had good visibility of the previous door opening, with time to react. The position of plant pots outside the dwelling would also prevent people walking close to the garage door in any event. Therefore, the safety benefits of a roller door compared with an up-and-over door would be very limited. 17. The fact that the opening sizes have not changed does not provide a benefit, rather it avoids further potential harm. Consistency with other similar developments nearby does not weigh in favour of the scheme, as for the reasons above, introducing further unsympathetically designed windows and garage door into the streetscene diminishes the character and appearance of the area. 18. I have no doubt that the proposals have improved security and functionality at the appeal dwelling, and that the new windows would require less maintenance, however these are private benefits, not public benefits. 19. The public benefits put forward therefore attract limited weight and are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified and the great weight I apply to the CA’s conservation in line with the Framework. 20. Therefore, the development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies 38, 39 and 40 of Appeal Decision 6002143 4 the City Plan 2019- 2040 (2026) which, amongst other things, require developments to incorporate exemplary standards of high quality urban design and architecture whilst having regard to the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and heritage assets; to ensure heritage assets and their settings are conserved and enhanced; and to be sensitively designed. Other Matters 21. The appellant contends that the development does not require planning permission due to the allowances of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Specifically, as the replacement windows and garage door are of a ‘similar appearance’ to the pre-existing windows and garage door. However, it is not within the confines of this appeal, under S78 of the Act2 for me to determine the lawfulness of the development or otherwise. The appeal follows a planning application specifically seeking planning permission and I have considered it on that basis. There are other mechanisms available to the appellant to establish whether the development was lawful for the reasons they have set out. 22. I appreciate the appellant’s concerns about the Council’s handling of the original application or other previous development in the Mews. However, this does not fall within my remit in considering this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 23. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I find that there are no material considerations, including the benefits of the development, which justify granting permission contrary to the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 24. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR 2 Town and Country Planning Act 1990