Appeal 3317956

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of replacement window within existing front dormer to dwellinghouse at [site address] , Sheffield [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, 22/04287/FUL, dated 29 November 2022, and the plans submitted with it.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately describes the development before me than the description provided on the planning application form.

The application was made retrospectively and I have considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the replacement window within the existing dormer on the character and appearance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

No. [site address] (No.25) is a mid-terrace, three-storey Victorian dwellinghouse located on the east side of [address], within the Nether Edge Conservation Area (the CA). The CA is to the south-west of Sheffield City Centre covering a large area of elevated land between [name] and Sheaf Valley.

The significance of the CA is as a residential suburb comprising a mix of different building styles from Victorian and Edwardian villas, medium-sized terraced housing, semi-detached Edwardian properties and both interwar and post war housing. [address] is one of three roads parallel to one another that run broadly north-south from [address] and form a part of the CA characterised by Victorian terraced housing more densely laid than other areas. It is an attractive residential road with dwellings generally uniform in appearance with a ground floor bay and distinctive second floor gabled dormer. The window of No.25’s dormer has been replaced with a painted timber window, which appears a sash but is a top-opening casement design. It replaced a traditional sliding timber sash window.

Whilst it is accepted that a sliding sash represents the traditional character of the CA, I observed on my site visit numerous examples on [address] where windows (notably to the dormers) have been replaced, including with uPVC casements. I further observed that the visual difference between the top opening casement design and a sliding sash, in this case, would only be discernible when the window was opened. From the road, when closed, it appears a traditional sash and the colour of the painted timber has limited consequence to its overall appearance.

The significance of a CA is widely experienced. Proposals must therefore be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole and have a moderate degree of prominence. For the reasons given, the replacement window would not be prominent and I find it would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the CA. It therefore meets the statutory duty at S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and accords with paragraphs 199 to 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It further accords with Policies BE5, BE16, BE17 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) which together require a high standard of design that respects the details and materials of the original building and the distinctive heritage of an area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.