Appeal 3275261

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In the interest of clarity, I have taken the description of development from the decision notice which was also replicated in the appeal form as it is more concise.

On 20 July 2021 the Government published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The main parties have been provided with a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the publication. The comments received have been addressed in this decision.

Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Langham Conservation Area (CA).

The CA derives considerable significance from the large number of historic buildings that centre around the Church of [name] and [name] and the narrow meandering roads that lead from this. The relationship of streets to open spaces and the presence of trees and greenery also contribute positively to its character. The buildings across the CA vary in age and appearance and I saw that some properties had uPVC windows of various designs.

No 15 is a Victorian semi-detached dwelling constructed from red brick with white timber sash windows to the front. Nos 17 and 19 have similarly designed sash windows to the front. [name] 21 traditional sash windows have been replaced with uPVC casements. Porches on Nos 15, 19 and 21 also have uPVC windows of different design to the windows on the main parts of the dwellings. Nevertheless, despite these alterations the simple form, modest scale and architectural detailing of the appeal site and the other [address] remain largely consistent.

The group of dwellings are located in a relatively prominent location on a busy road through the CA. Although the various changes have somewhat altered their appearance, due to their traditional form they still positively contribute to the appearance, and thereby the significance, of the CA.

The existing sash windows have through glazing bars and also horns as part of the frames. In contrast, the proposed windows would have external bonded glazing bars which would be installed over a single double-glazed pane. The photograph provided of how the proposed windows would appear also has applied horns. This would result in a materially different appearance to that of the existing windows, as the applied nature of these features would be obvious when viewed from the street, as it is on other examples in the local area. The proposal would therefore erode the detailing and architectural quality of the existing dwelling.

The traditional timber sash windows still present in this row of dwellings positively contribute to the appearance of the group and the CA, particularly given their prominent position. The proposed unsympathetically designed windows would harm the appearance of the host property and the group, and their contribution to the CA, harming its appearance.

Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. Given the limited scope of the proposal this would amount to less than substantial harm to the heritage asset, although this is still a matter which attracts considerable importance and weight. The Framework requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed UPVC windows are designed to last longer than typical timber windows and would provide better insulation, reducing fuel use. This would be a limited environmental benefit but one which is supported by local policies seeking to minimise energy consumption. While primarily a private benefit to the occupants of the dwelling, the contribution to tackling climate change would be a public benefit, although very small given the scope of the proposal. Nevertheless, while I recognise that the existing windows are in comparatively poor condition, it has not been demonstrated that the same benefit cannot be achieved with other windows. Therefore, I afford this very limited weight.

The proposal would also provide greater protection from road noise; however this would be a private benefit to the occupants. Consequently, the public benefits associated with the proposal would not outweigh the identified harm to the heritage asset.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies CS19 and CS22 of the Rutland Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) and Policies SP15 and SP20 of the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (adopted 2014). These policies expect development to be sympathetically designed and conserve or enhance the historic environment. Furthermore, the proposal would conflict with Policy D3e of the Langham Neighbourhood Plan (NP) (made 2017) which states that windows should preferably be constructed of wood and that the styles typical to the area should be maintained as well as the proportions of the original. Additionally, it would conflict with Policies CH1, D3a and D3h of the NP which require materials and architectural features to be sympathetic to and reflect the character of existing buildings.

The proposal would also conflict with the design and heritage policies of the Framework.

There are no material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, the proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole and, having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and shall dismiss the appeal.