Appeal 3296571

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the insertion of 1 front room PVC window, 1 master bedroom PVC window, and 1 PVC front door, all on the front of the house, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/02250/F, dated 13 November 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: (GA)1000

No door or ground floor window shall open outwards to extend out over the highway.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed door and windows on the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area – The Friars Area (CA).

No 62 Is a mid-terraced house situated at the northern end of [address], close to its junction with [address]. Checker street is a narrow one-way street, characterised largely by small terraced houses, fronting directly onto the pavement. The terraced houses along this part of the street have a front elevation with a front door and two small windows, one window on each of the two floors. The door and windows serving No 62 appear to be aluminium-framed. The door is largely glazed, with a central horizontal bar, and the windows each have a small, top-opening pane above a larger fixed pane. The proposed development would involve the replacement of the existing front door and front windows with new UPVC versions.

[address] lies within the CA. The CA Character Statement explains that its character includes a succession of small roads to the west of [address], revealing more intimate and modest buildings and terraces. [address] is one such street and includes terraces of modest dwellings. The Character Statement refers to the area’s traditional character and materials as including locally sourced brick, solid panel doors and timber framed, sliding sash, single glazed windows with up to twelve panes. The character statement also refers to detractors to the Conservation Area as including seemingly minor alterations, such as unsuitable replacement windows and doors.

Policy CS08 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) indicates that new development will be required to demonstrate its ability to protect and enhance the historic environment. Policy CS12 of the CS indicates that the Council will preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the qualities and characteristics of the historic environment. Policy DM15 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (DMP) indicates that development must protect and enhance the amenity of the wider environment including its heritage and cultural value, and that proposals will be assessed against a number of factors including heritage impact and visual impact.

The Council contends that the proposed replacement doors and windows would not have regard for the special character of the CA, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the CA by the use of inappropriate UPVC materials. In addition, UPVC for doors and windows is not a material sympathetic to the character of the CA and the design is inconsistent with the CA’s character. The insertion of UPVC has created a degree of erosion to CA’s character, and its use in this case would result in additional harm to the CA.

The appellant contends that the scheme proposes to replace the existing unattractive aluminium framed front windows and door with new UPVC units, which will enhance the character of the host property and the wider conservation area. Moreover, the proposed windows would replicate the colour and style of windows which were originally installed at the property whilst the door would also respect the style of the original solid panel door. Therefore, it is stated that the proposal would reinstate the property’s original character complementing the wider pattern of development upon [address]. Finally he notes that numerous properties have installed UPVC windows with many adopting a design to imitate original sash windows. There is also a wide variety of door designs, so ensuring that the proposal would not appear out of place.

The appeal property has an aluminium door that is largely glazed. The front, top opening windows are also of an aluminium type with unequal top and bottom panes. On this basis, the house appears as wholly uncharacteristic and unsympathetic to the surrounding area, where no other aluminium doors and windows of this style are in evidence. From my visit, it would appear that, in the vicinity of the appeal property there is a variety of door and window styles, many utilising UPVC. There are also very few windows of the sliding sash type, most having top opening features and some with unequal sized panes, which is also non-traditional. On the opposite side of [address] to the appeal property, No 53 is an end-terrace house with a side garden and front door. Adjacent to No [address] of small single-storey dwellings on the site of earlier alms houses. There is, therefore, considerable variety in both the character and appearance of this part of [address].

I acknowledge that, traditionally, the houses in the CA as a whole would have utilised solid panel doors and timber framed, sliding sash, single glazed windows with up to twelve panes, as outlined in the [name]. However, there are relatively few houses along this part of [address] with timber-framed doors and windows, and even fewer with sliding sash windows and multiple panes.

In my opinion, the proposed replacement doors and windows would improve the appearance of No 62 and enable it to respond more sympathetically to the basic character and appearance of the area. The replacement door would have a solid bottom panel, more in keeping with the general tone of doors in the vicinity, and the use of windows with two equal-sized panes would replicate the type of window traditionally associated with the CA. Whilst as a general rule it would be preferable to utilise timber doors and window frames, in this particular case, the UPVC elements would be replacing wholly unattractive, relatively modern features that are detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA, and they would improve the appearance of the area.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would preserve and, arguably, enhance the character and appearance of the CA as it currently exists. On this basis, it would have a positive visual impact and would not harm the CA. Moreover, it would not conflict with Policies CS08 and CS12 of the CS nor with Policy DM15 of the DMP. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to the non-outward-opening of the front door and ground floor windows in the interests of pedestrian/highway safety.