Appeal 3286972

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of single glazed wooden sash windows with UPVC double glazed sash windows at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref BH2021/02035, dated 29 May 2021.

I use the Council’s description of development which is more concise than the application form; I note the Appellant also uses this on the appeal form.

The windows are in situ; this does not alter my assessment process.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and locality.

The appeal property is a two-storey terraced dwelling on a steeply sloping street of generally similar properties. It has simple elevations and this property along with others locally in this area of established residential character come together to create a neighbourhood of very pleasing appearance and sense of heritage. The appeal scheme is as described above.

The site lies within the [address] Conservation Area. There is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is reflected within Saved Policy HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan (LP) which also includes a range of relevant design criteria for proposals within Conservation Areas. Similarly, the thrust of S72(1) is, amongst other matters, included in Policy CP15 of the City Plan Part One (CP). At the same time Policy DM26 in the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two (CP2) carries some weight and follows the lead of S72(1) and amongst other matters calls for materials and finishes to respect their locality.

I can entirely see the reasoning for the Council, through policy protection and design guidance, seeking to secure that replacement windows in conservation areas will be constructed in traditional materials. In the vast majority of cases, in my experience, this would be the appropriate approach. As an exception I differ in this case.

The design, profile and proportions of the sash windows in hand are extremely close to original, a very unusual situation I would say, and one has to look very hard and at very close viewing to ascertain they are not timber; a very unusual situation to my mind. Furthermore, there are appreciable numbers of UPVC windows in this stretch of [address], giving something of a character setting in terms of material; albeit many are most unfortunate because of their design and in all likelihood do not have recent planning pedigree and certainly repetition of these profiles could not be condoned. The principal aesthetic quality of this road is the steep terraced drop down each side of the street, the rhyme of shallow canted bays, small front gardens, steps to front doors, and the general view down the road towards the sea rather than any fine detail of finish on this specific discreet appeal property itself.

Given all these circumstances and the nature of the scheme I conclude that the proposal would not run contrary to the aims of S72(1) of the Act or conflict with LP Saved Policy HE6, CP Policy CP15 or CP2 Policy DM26.