Installation of guarding in association with use of roof as terrace

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2026 by Andrew McGlone BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010573 8 Wilfred Street, City of Westminster, London SW1E 6PL • 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 E Johnston against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref is 26/00509/FULL. • The development proposed is the installation of guarding in association with use of roof as terrace. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Railings are in place at the appeal property in the location of the appeal scheme to facilitate the use of the roof as a terrace. However, I have considered the proposed development as detailed on the submitted plans on its own planning merits. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Birdcage Walk Conservation Area (“CA”). Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terraced property located on the north side of the road near to the western boundary of the CA. Neighbouring properties in the road are of a varied style, age and detailing, but they positively contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the CA despite their disjointed roofscape that uses a range of roof profiles. This is typified by the buildings between 10 and 26 Wilfred Street and their varied facades, styles and heights of buildings. Nevertheless, the small-scale nature of buildings in small enclaves in a relatively tight-knit urban grain positively contributes to the CA’s significance. Buildings here use a consistent palette of materials and display a residential character, and while roof detail in the CA varies, it is generally of a similar scale. 5. Despite Nos 10 to 26, there is considerable similarity between the appeal property and the attached corner property at 48 Catherine Place as both buildings have a mansard roof with modest dormer windows with consistent roof lines, a similar appearance, proportion and they use similar materials. Their positive contribution to the corner of both roads can be experienced on approach from the northeast. 6. The height, siting and extent of the metal railings on top of the mansard roof would be the same as those currently in situ, albeit their design would be simpler and no longer include extra horizontal elements. The material proposed also differs from an earlier scheme which comprised of contemporary glazing. Appeal Decision 6010573 2 7. The submitted plans do not reflect the height of the existing right-hand chimney stack, as it is lower than shown. As a result, the proposed railings would not sit below the chimney stack as indicated and being the same height as the existing railings, they would project above the chimney stack and broadly align with the chimney pots when viewed from ground level, particularly given the proposed position of the railings at the outer edge of the mansard roof. Although the simplified railing design would be less visually dominant, it would be clearly visible in either direction along Wilfred Street and would appear out of character with the building's front elevation and roofscape, causing visual harm in both longer-range public views and from various floors of neighbouring properties. 8. The proposal would also disrupt the uniform and rhythm of the roofline of the appeal property and No 48, distracting from the focal point that they provide at the junction of the two roads, and the positive contribution that they make to the character and appearance of the CA. As such, the proposed design does not follow an established form that would help unify the architectural character of an existing terrace or group. 9. The appellant has cited various local examples, though I do not know how any of these came to be or whether they benefit from planning permission. But, in terms of their substance, the building at the corner of Palace Street and Buckingham Place has a different roof form to those which adjoin it, and therefore, the continuity differs from the appeal property. The examples at 2 to 4 Buckingham Place are all set back and not prominent parts of the roofline when viewed from the street. 10. The examples at 23, 25 and 27 Catherine Place have a simpler style from that proposed and/or sit within a varied context which includes the properties to the southwest. The examples cited at 55 to 61 Catherine Place do not form part of a unified roofline due to different building styles and scales or sit below the top of the chimney breasts and their associated pots, which helps maintain a sub-servient appearance and continuity of roof form. While 22, 24 and 27 Wilfred Street are either set back, not part of a unified building line, and/or set below the flank walls and chimney breasts. The examples at 1 to 31 Avery House (23 Wilfred Street) and at 30 Buckingham Gate form part of buildings with a different scale, massing and architecture which are fundamentally different from the appeal property. Avery House is also stepped back from the road, and there is a break between the upper floors of this building and neighbouring buildings. 11. As such, none of the examples cited are directly comparable to the proposal and do not justify it. Therefore, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and the harm caused to the CA, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), would be less than substantial harm at the low end of the spectrum. That said, the CA is an irreplaceable resource, and I give great weight to the CA’s conservation. Framework paragraph 213 explains that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. 12. The appeal property is a six-bedroom home with a limited amount of outdoor amenity space that is perennially over-shadowed. Although this is an existing home rather than a new home, the provision of additional outdoor amenity space would be beneficial to the occupants and the overall quality of housing stock in the area. This would aid their health and wellbeing, so I attach limited to moderate weight to this benefit. The proposal’s lack of impact on neighbouring residents’ living conditions carries neutral weight. Taking these matters together, they do not outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause to the CA. Appeal Decision 6010573 3 13. I conclude that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Hence, the proposal would not accord with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). Conflict would also arise with Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan 2019 – 2040 and Framework paragraph 215. Jointly these policies seek, among other things, development, which includes alterations and extensions to not disrupt any uniformity and rhythms of groupings of buildings that contribute positively to Westminster’s distinctive townscape. Proposals should also positively contribute to Westminster’s townscape and streetscape, having regard to the character and appearance of the existing area, adjacent buildings and heritage assets, so that they and their settings are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. Conclusion 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McGlone INSPECTOR