Whatever the article may say, the reasons for rejection were:

1. The proposed shopfront and ATM fail to respect the special character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding Forest Hill Conservation Area contrary to Policies 7.4 Local Character and 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology of the London Plan (2011); Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham and Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment of the Core Strategy (2011); DM Policy 19 Shopfronts, signs and hoardings, DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character, DM Policy 31 Alterations/extensions to existing buildings and DM Policy New development, changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage assets and their setting: conservation areas, listed buildings, schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens of the Development Management Local Plan (2014); and the Shopfront Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (March 2006).

No other factors are mentioned in the decision.

I wonder what kind of ATM would pass the heritage test? Perhaps one with a surrround with columns and a pediment? And in an area as architecturally eclectic as Forest Hill would the columns be Grecian, Roman, Early English or late gothic?

I have to say that, in my view, Lewisham is far too wedded to the use of conservation areas as a method of improving the environment. Conservation approaches work well where there is some obvious thing to be conserved - for example, it is obvious what needs to be done to maintain the appearance of a Nash terrace or a medieval hammerbeam roof. In an area like Forest Hill, one person's judgement (whether citizen or planning officer) is likely to be as good and subjective as another's (whether planning officer or citizen).

This then carries a real risk of arbitrary government.