Appeal 3373069

The appeal is dismissed.

Permission was granted under [name]. 23/02563/PLF on 4 June 2025 for the erection of 2 detached dwellings with detached garages and conversion of existing barn to create 4 dwellings with 2 carports and associated access and works. This was subject to conditions requiring the submission of detailed section drawings for windows and doors and for them to be of timber construction. The Council considers that these conditions are necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the stable buildings, a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) and the surrounding area. The appellant objects to the conditions as they are considered to be unnecessary, overly prescriptive and disproportionate in relation to the scale, context and nature of the proposed development.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary to preserve the character or appearance of the NDHA and surrounding area.

The appeal buildings are a range of former stables associated with [address] House which date to the later part of the 19th Century. The group of buildings is considered to be a NDHA by the Council due to their historic interest. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The former stable block buildings were arranged in a ‘C’ shape and faced onto a yard, enclosed by a 2m high brick wall. At the time of my site visit, work had commenced, with roofs and windows removed. However, I note that the evidence shows that prior to work commencing, the doors and windows were black painted Georgian style timber frames, which are typical of the age and style of this type of building in the district. The stable block adjoins an area of open space to the east and new dwellings are currently being built to the north of the site. The wider area is characterised by modern residential development where the use of white uPVC window frames is prevalent.

The form and arrangement of the windows and door openings contribute positively to the architectural and historical significance of the buildings and their former ancillary use to [address] House. The appearance of the buildings is to be substantially altered as part of its conversion and new window and door openings and rooflights are to be inserted. The approved plans show that the entrance doors would be painted timber, bi-folds to be powder coated aluminium and the windows would be uPVC. However, the drawings do not show detailed measurements, profiles, colours or finishes of the proposed doors and windows or recess depths.

The window and door openings distinguish this group of former ancillary buildings from the modern residential development which surrounds it. The use of inappropriate windows and doors would increase the domesticated appearance of the buildings and erode their traditional appearance. Therefore, it is necessary that greater control should be exercised over the appearance of windows and doors than applies more generally in the local area in order to retain the historic significance of this group of buildings. Whilst the use of an alternative material to timber frames and doors on the former stable block may be acceptable, this is very much dependent on the specific design, proportions and profiles. More detailed drawings of the doors and windows are therefore necessary in order to fully assess the scale of any harm to the significance of the NDHA and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Consequently, I find that the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the NDHA and surrounding area.

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