Replacement fenestration with historically appropriate fenestration comprising matching joinery design with slimline double glazing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2026 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013978 41 Elgin Road, Croydon CR0 6XD • 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 Ms Belinda Lodge against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref is 26/00900/HSE. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “replacement fenestration with historically appropriate fenestration comprising matching joinery design with slimline double glazing ”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the replacement of the ground and first floor front windows and the front door of 41 Elgin Road, Croydon CR0 6XD. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of the front dormer window and all windows and doors to the rear of 41 Elgin Road, Croydon CR0 6XD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00900/HSE, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall accord with the following approved drawings in so far as they relate to the elements of the proposal hereby approved: 446-01-A005-1 and 446-01-A006-1. Procedural Matters 2. The majority of the alterations for which planning permission has been sought have been carried out and therefore the appeal essentially relates to an application for retrospective planning permission. 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 17 August 2026. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not materially changed. As a result, I have not sought submissions on the revised Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the locally listed host building and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the East India Estate Conservation Area. Appeal Decision 6013978 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property forms part of a handsome, locally listed terrace comprising four 2-storey houses. Whilst one house has a rendered front elevation and the dormer has been reconstructed, the group retains a high degree of unity due to the retention of key features such as the stucco window surrounds, recessed entrances and the symmetrical arrangement of the frontage and roof form. 6. Elgin Road is a residential street which is situated within the East India Estate Conservation Area (CA). The CA derives its significance from its historic development, the regular street pattern, a concentration of Victorian and Edwardian buildings, consistent building lines and the architectural quality and group value of the houses and terraces. Elgin Road includes a wide variety of styles and ages of housing including 20th century flats. 7. The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2014) states that alterations and poor maintenance of buildings and front gardens, lack of street trees and planting in front gardens has had a detrimental impact on the appearance of Elgin Road and the overall condition of the streetscape could be significantly improved. 8. In respect of window replacement, the Management Plan states that replacements should match the original window design and be of timber construction. It advises that the use of uPVC as a replacement material for original or traditional style timber windows will not be considered acceptable as their proportions, opening methods, shiny plastic appearance, and light reflection are all at odds with the character of historic buildings. 9. The information before me indicates that prior to the appeal scheme being carried out the ground and first floor front windows were timber sashes and the front entrance comprised a timber panelled door with glazing. Most notably, the ground floor window comprised 3 separate openings divided by protruding mullions, which were either original features or closely replicated the original arrangement. These mullions remain in place at 43 Elgin Road but have been removed from the other two houses in the group, to the detriment of the appearance of the locally listed building and the CA. 10. The appeal scheme comprises the replacement of windows and doors with uPVC windows and doors. The application drawings indicate that the windows broadly replicate those that have been replaced whilst the doors are of a different format. The Council has advised that it does not object to the alterations carried out at the rear of the property. I find no reason to take a contrary view in this respect. In addition, I am satisfied that the front dormer window adequately preserves the appearance of the terrace and the CA given that it has replaced a similar casement window. 11. However, the replacement of the ground floor window has resulted in the loss of the mullions which were a key feature of the frontage. This, together with the use of uPVC frames, has resulted in clear harm. Unlike the earlier front door, the uPVC replacement is entirely at odds with the style and age of the appeal property. Due to their prominence in the street scene, I am also of the view that the pair of uPVC first floor windows result in material harm. Appeal Decision 6013978 3 12. Due to their design, materials and appearance I therefore conclude that the ground and first floor front windows and the front door have an unacceptable effect on the appearance of the locally listed building and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. For this reason, these aspects of the appeal scheme are contrary to policies DM10 and DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and London Plan (2021) Policy HC1 which, amongst other matters, seek high quality design that integrates with and makes a positive contribution to the historic environment. 13. The Framework states that where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Public benefits can include enabling energy efficiency. Whilst the appeal scheme improves the energy efficiency of the appeal property there is no evidence before me to indicate that comparable benefits cannot be achieved through alterations that result in lesser impact on the historic environment. As such the benefits of the appeal scheme are not sufficient to outweigh the harm. 14. I note my colleague’s observations in respect of the allowed appeal1 for window replacement at 61 Elgin Road and the other appeal decisions referred to by the appellant. However, the appeal scheme is materially different from that approved at No. 61 and elsewhere. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits I accord limited weight to these matters. Conditions 15. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As the development hereby permitted has been carried out the standard time limit condition is not necessary. However, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring the approved development to accord with the approved drawings, in so far as they relate to matters that have been permitted, is needed. Conclusions 16. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail in respect of the replacement of the ground and first floor front windows and the front door and should succeed in respect of the replacement of the front dormer window and all windows and doors to the rear of the appeal property. S Poole INSPECTOR 1 Appeal ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3365922