Installation of uPVC sash windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012298 12 Bravington Road, City of Westminster, London W9 3AH • 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 Miss Marlene Grant against the decision of City of Westminster Council. • The application Ref is 25/07039FULL. • The development proposed is installation of uPVC sash windows. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of uPVC sash windows at 12 Bravington Road, City of Westminster, London W9 3AH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/07039FULL, and the plans submitted with it and identified as: TQRQM25239162515090, 2641 – PLMN – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 240, 2641 – PLMN – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 220 01, 2641 – PLMN – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 110 01 and 2641 – PLMN – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 210. 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 Matters 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in August 2026. I have considered the changes and as they are not material to the appeal development, further comments were not sought by the parties. 4. I have taken the description of development above from the Council’s decision notice as this is more precise. 5. 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 6. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 7. The appeal building is a mid-terraced property situated on Bravington Road, a residential street consisting of other similar properties. The properties are Appeal Decision 6012298 2 consistent in their character and appearance particularly in the design of their fenestration which is of traditional Victorian slide and sash detailing which makes a positive contribution to the area. The property is not listed nor is it within a conservation area. 8. I observed on my site visit that the properties on Bravington Road had generally retained their traditional form. This was particularly the case where properties possessed windows with traditional horns, sliding sashes and sliding sash opening lights. The material palette of windows was, however, varied with a mixture of uPVC and timber utilised. The appeal development is read in this context and whilst its use of uPVC as a material does not match the original windows, it is read in the varied material context present on Bravington Road. The appeal windows are appropriate in their design, detailing, glazing pattern and form, responding sensitively to the existing arrangement at the appeal building and those in the surrounding properties. 9. The appeal windows have a timber effect finish, together with other features that the appellant sets out that authentically replicate timber windows. Although I acknowledge that modern materials can sometimes have an overly regular, flat and shiny appearance, in this instance, having regard to the details of the windows before me, I consider that they are of a sympathetic design. 10. I therefore conclude that the appeal development does not harm the character and appearance of the appeal building or area. It therefore complies with Policies 42 and 45 of the City Plan 2019 – 2040 (2026). These seek, amongst other things, for development to be sensitively designed having regard to its surroundings. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR