Replacement front elevation windows in white wood grain effect uPVC sash style windows to match existing and matching traditional style front entrance door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 July 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010643 188 Peach Road, City of Westminster, London W10 4DY • 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 Andrew Reik against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref is 25/07324/FULL. • The development is replacement front elevation windows in white wood grain effect uPVC sash style windows to match existing and matching traditional style front entrance 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. The description above is taken from the application form and does not include the retrospective nature of the appeal or the windows on the rear elevation. Both parties appear to agree that the development has already been carried out. The appellant has confirmed in their evidence that the proposal does not include the windows on the rear elevation because they believe them to be permitted development. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Queens Park Estate Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a Victorian terraced dwelling. The originality of the buildings in the terrace is reflected in a strong horizontal rhythm that is created by repeated timber window and door openings with entrance arches, decorative architraves and hood moulds. All of these factors create a consistency among the properties which lends a traditional architectural significance to the area and contributes positively to the CA. The appeal property is one of a small number of dwellings that protrudes prominently forward in the terrace. 6. All of the windows on the front elevation have been changed to UPVC. These have a chunky and sheer profile with visually obvious trickle vents that are not flush. Even with a wood grain finish and sliding sash, the windows have a manufactured and Appeal Decision 6010643 2 noticeably less tactile appearance than the timber sliding sashes that are more period typical of the dwelling type. The same can be said for the addition of the UPVC door that has a polished appearance and appears incongruous on the frontage. The glazing proportions of the door do not reflect the slimmer profile that the more traditional doors have and any loss of cast iron detail from the original is regrettable. The development results in a loss of the traditional fenestration, and the distinctly more modern material and profile of the windows and door undermine the original historic architectural quality of the building and its importance to the significance of the CA. 7. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Paragraph 205 of The Framework places emphasis on great weight being given to the asset’s conservation. 8. Given the assessment above, the development neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the CA. Due to the scale of the development in context, the harm is at the lower end of less than substantial. As directed by paragraph 215 of the Framework, harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. Better thermal performance would be more of a private benefit to the building’s occupants, and I remain to be convinced that the proposal would be the only way of meeting building regulation requirements. Improved efficiency more generally might mean less reliance on energy consumption, but this effect would be limited in the grand scheme given the fact it would be from only one building. I therefore afford these matters limited weight. Consequently, they are not incapable of outweighing the harm that I have found. 9. The development does not therefore meet the requirements of Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City of Westminster City Plan 2026 and Policy 5 of the Queens Park Community Council Neighbourhood Plan 2021 which are concerned with the historic environment and character amongst other things. Other Matters 10. I have not been provided with images of the pre-existing windows that the appellant claims were not original nor their planning history. Nevertheless, even if the proportions of the pre-existing windows were larger and more akin to the appeal scheme, that does not make the UPVC windows in this case acceptable, nor does it provide a legitimate fallback position. There may be some examples of UPVC windows or doors within the CA, but these are the exception not the norm and do not sway me to recommend allowing the appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6010643 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR