Appeal 3333079

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to 4 replacement windows to the front of the property.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single replacement window to the rear of the property and planning permission is granted to replace 1 window to the property at [site address] Kinver, Stourbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00552/FULHH, dated 22 June 2023, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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 approved plans: - Location Plan PP-12260372v1, Block Plan TQRQM23173214549975 and Existing and Proposed rear elevations 1154 131.000 [name].

The planning application form indicates that 6 windows are to be replaced. However, only 5 are shown on the plans and therefore I have used the corresponding description as set out on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issue is whether the development would preserve or enhance the Kinver Conservation Area.

There is a statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The property has a relatively central location along the [address] which exhibits an attractive range and variety of historic buildings and forms part of the Kinver Conservation Area.

The proposal relates to the front upper floor windows and a single window to the rear of the three-storey building comprising 115A and [address]. The proposed grey, flush-fitting uPVC windows would be visibly different to the white-painted wooden windows with leaded lights they are to replace.

Other than the immediate neighbour, the Bay Tree Restaurant, where all of the windows are green uPVC and have a notable presence on the appearance of that building, the majority of other buildings in close vicinity retain timber windows and doors. The form varies but they are part of the building's heritage reflecting the architectural styles and craftsmanship of their time.

The proposed windows are to have a wooden grain effect and I acknowledge that the appearance and design of uPVC windows have advanced. Nonetheless, the homogenous ‘machine-made’ appearance of uPVC would lack the distinctive subtleties and texture of painted timber windows. Through the combination of the materials, design (thicker frames and trickle vents), and colour, the windows would have a starker appearance and would contrast with the ground-floor timber windows. Whilst existing street trees may in part filter some visibility, the building is seen in various views along the [address] and the Kinver Neighbourhood Plan [address] is one of the frequently mentioned heritage assets which residents want to see protected. As referred to by the appellant there are some examples of uPVC replacement windows further along the [address]. The background to these is not before me, but generally, they diminish the period character of the respective properties, and this does not justify the further harmful erosion of the historic fabric of the area.

Consequently, the replacement windows in the front elevation of the building would not make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. They would significantly erode the cohesion the building has with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its significance as a designated

Notwithstanding this, to the rear there are existing uPVC windows within the building and to the neighbouring properties. The small bathroom window to be replaced is at first floor level in the gable end which sits behind a wall. Having regard to this context and the limited visibility from the public domain I do not find that this replacement would be harmful to the significance of the Conservation Area.

The harm from the replacement of front windows to the Kinver Conservation Area as a whole would be less than substantial and in accordance with paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposed windows have a high energy efficiency rating and there would be reduced maintenance. Nonetheless, great weight is to be given to the conservation of heritage assets and I consider that the changes proposed are primarily a private benefit. Consequently, the benefits would not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset.

Thus, the replacement of the front windows would fail to accord with policies EQ3 and EQ11 of the South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy which seek the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, and that development is of the highest quality with the design taking into account the local character and distinctiveness.

With regards to the replacement rear window conditions are necessary for certainty in relation to the time scale for implementation and compliance with the plans.

For the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the windows in the front elevation to the [address] and allowed insofar as the single replacement to the rear.