Appeal 6000045

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the [site address] Conservation Area (‘CA’).

The appeal property ( [site address] ) forms part of the [site address] CA. This derives its significance from the architectural interest of the 1910/11 and 1934 [site address] [name] and a planned garden suburb. Most notably, the appeal property was designed in the predominant Arts and Crafts style of the first exhibition houses. Based on my observations and the [site address] Conservation Area Character Appraisal and [name], the appeal property because of its distinct design and authenticity makes a positive contribution to the [site address] CA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended, requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) says when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset (including conservation areas), great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

The proposal seeks to replace some of the windows within the appeal property. The existing windows which are to be replaced are at an advanced state of disrepair. This includes rotting frames and structural instability and therefore these pose a safety risk and cause excessive heat loss.

The Council has confirmed that the principal of replacing the existing, original windows has already been established by the extant planning permission granted under planning application ref. P1018.22. The approved replacement windows are aluminium framed, square-leaded and double glazed.

The replacement windows in the scheme before me, would comprise timber flush casements with applied leaded lights. The Council has suggested that timber window replacements are acceptable in the [site address] CA, I have no strong reason to disagree.

The proposed timber-framed replacement windows are intended to match the appearance of the original windows and include bar detailing. Furthermore, at the request of the Council, trickle vents have been removed from the design to ensure better alignment with the original windows and the visual character of the [site address] CA.

Nevertheless, I note that the sizes of the frames of the replacement windows do not reflect those of the original windows. Also, the 18mm width of the proposed glazing in conjunction with the external mounted lead would result in a very flat, standardised appearance and a double reflection where the surface applied lead is reflected in the second pane of the double glazed unit. Therefore, the replacement windows would be removed from the character and appearance of the original windows.

In particular, the appeal property occupies a corner position and its front and side elevations, which would feature most of the replacement windows are highly visible from the adjacent roads. Consequently, the differentiation between the retained original windows and proposed replacements, would be readily observed and apparent from the adjacent roads.

The appellant advises that the manufacturer has confirmed that 18mm glazing is the thinnest available for the proposed timber-framed windows. Further adding that while 14mm glazing exists, this does not support the inclusion of bar detailing that is crucial to replicate the appearance of the original windows. As such, according to the appellant, the 18mm glazing represents the only viable option to meet both modern standards and the aesthetic requirements of the Conservation Area. Even so, I have no substantive evidence from the manufacture in support of this.

Moreover, on the information before me, a scheme for replacement windows incorporating 14mm glazing has already been approved for the appeal property. As such, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that an alternative scheme for replacement windows could be secured, which is of a more acceptable design in respect of the appeal property and the [site address] CA than the scheme before me.

Consequently, I am of the view that the replacement windows to the prominent roadside elevations would unacceptably contrast with its existing authenticity. They would therefore result in harm to the character, appearance and heritage attributes of the appeal property and that of the [site address] CA.

The harm the proposal would cause to the significance of the [site address] CA would be less than substantial. Paragraph 207 of the Framework states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The proposal is essential to maintain the building’s functionality, ensure its safety, and preserve its overall contribution to the Conservation Area. This would also improve the energy efficiency of the property, reducing heat loss and lowering carbon emissions in alignment with national sustainability objectives. However, there is nothing to suggest that these matters could not be addressed by means other than the proposed replacement windows, given that an alternative and acceptable scheme for replacement windows has already been approved for the appeal property. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these benefits.

Having special regard to the desirability of conserving the heritage asset. As set out in the Framework that despite finding the harm to be less than substantial, I still attach significant weight to this. Such harm can be outweighed by public benefits. However, the benefits in this instance do not outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [site address] CA. As such, I find conflict with the aims of Policies 26 and 28 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted November 2021 and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021). Amongst other things, these policies require new development to secure high quality design in Conservation Areas and conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets. Also, that where a development proposal is judged to cause harm then it will be assessed against the relevant test in the Framework depending on whether the harm is substantial or less than substantial. Accordingly, the proposal also conflicts with the aims of the Framework for conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

I am aware that the appellant has made several applications for replacement windows, each revised to address the concerns raised in previous refusals. Even so, I have found the submitted scheme to be unacceptable for the reasons set out above.

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