Replacement of two single-glazed timber windows on ground floor and first floor front elevation with timber like-to-like double glazed casement windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010956 99 Esmond Road, Chiswick, Ealing W4 1JE • 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 Michael Janov against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref is 260047HH. • The development proposed is a replacement of two single-glazed timber windows on ground floor and first floor front elevation with timber like-to-like double glazed casement windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Preliminary Matter 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. 3. The most recent National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) includes changes with respect to heritage matters with specific regard to the degrees of harm. That said, the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different from the previous iteration of the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that I can proceed without further consultation with the main parties since, with the above in mind, their respective cases would not be prejudiced. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bedford Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site is a mid-terraced dwelling situated centrally within the CA. The building along with the adjoining one to the right are unique in their appearance in terms of the cat slide roof and use of varying materials on the front elevation. A key feature of the property is the ground and first-floor windows, which, together with their lintels, are timber-framed. The ground-floor top-hung windows incorporate individual glazing bars, this feature means they sit well with the dwelling and contribute positively to its traditional and thus historical significance. The CA is a good example of early residential housing estate in London. The wider dwellings within the street scene feature varying forward-facing appearances. Moreover, a level of consistency is viewed in terms of the materials and specifically window Appeal Decision 6010956 2 design and finishes. These features in combination contribute to a well-designed and preserved character and appearance for the CA. 6. No detailed plans have been provided showing how the proposed double-glazed windows would sit in their respective reveals and therefore appear as a whole on the building. Sections and photographs have been submitted to demonstrate the slimline nature of the windows and their scale. The existing openings are a fundamental and high-quality aspect of the building’s traditionality. Moreover, whilst the windows from afar would follow the same proportions and scaling, up close, they would clearly be a modern intervention with a loss of the important detailing reflective of the age of the building. 7. The proposed replacement window for the ground floor would include an attempt to replicate glazing bars on the upper hung windows which would be stuck on the glass rather than the more traditional separate glazing panels between each bar. This would be obvious and unacceptably detract from the quality of the other well- preserved examples within the street scene. I am unconvinced that the new windows would be a true like for like replacement given the lack of timber detailing and double-glazed nature. The appellant has detailed that the windows are in a poor state of repair and reached the end of their serviceable life. However, I have not been provided with any details as to why alternative courses of action such as secondary glazing have been discounted. 8. 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 and appearance of that area. Nationally speaking, Policy HE6 of the Framework places emphasis on substantial weight being given to the heritage asset’s conservation. By virtue of the above assessment, there would be harm to the CA in a failure to either preserve or enhance its character or appearance. This should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 9. Whilst the replacement windows may provide some sustainability benefits, these would mainly be private for the occupiers on the property and only tenuously public. Some economic effects would arise during the construction phase but would attract limited weight given the modest scale of the development. They would also be time limited. Resultantly, I could give no more than limited weight to the public benefits overall. They would not therefore outweigh the substantial weight given to the conservation of the CA. 10. As such, there would be conflict with Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies 7B, 7C and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) 2013. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and as a minimum conserve the historic environment. 11. As development within a settlement, Policy S4 of the new Framework would be relevant. It is clear from my earlier assessment that the adverse effects of the appeal scheme would carry substantial weight and the benefits (public for the sake of a heritage case) would not be sufficient to indicate a planning permission should be forthcoming. The position of Policy S4, and specifically a balance of adverse effect vs benefit would not therefore alter the outcome of the appeal. Appeal Decision 6010956 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 12. The appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced including the Framework, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR