Appeal 6000836

The appeal is dismissed.

As the site relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

I have taken the description of development from the decision notice as this is sufficiently precise.

Parties have referred to the works having already been carried out. However, from my site visit, it was apparent that the size of the rear kitchen window and the number of bullseye panes were different. Therefore, while the scheme has clearly commenced, I have considered the plans provided.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building known as “ [site address] ” (Ref: 1082654) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is a 17th century timber framed building with a projecting cross-wing. It is a rebuilt former hall with brick infill and tiled roofs. There is also a prominent chimney stack off the historic core of the building and the colours and pattern of the external timbers are prominent and indicative of its historic origins. Large parts of the property were rebuilt/altered in the 1970’s although a historic wing remains. Windows were replaced and some of the openings, such as the dormers, were subsequently created and/or enlarged. The building was listed after the rebuilding, and the listing includes the whole structure.

The windows that have been removed were 20th century. Nonetheless, their proportions, colour, design and single glazing meant their appearance was reserved and other than the bull’s eye panes, which are clearly modern, they did not stand out or detract from the historic elements. Although the rebuilt section does not contain historic fabric and is larger, it is more restrained and simpler in its appearance and has not tried to replicate the external detailing of the historic core. This core retains many of its traditional features such as the timber frame which stands out and remains the more eye catching and dominant part of the building.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is primarily associated with it being an example of historic domestic architecture and how it has been adapted while retaining the prominence of the remaining historic architectural detailing and form.

There is no dispute that the condition of the previous windows meant they required replacing. There is no clear evidence to lead me to a contrary finding. While the appellant states the replacements are like for like, I have little substantive detail on the previous windows in terms of dimensions or features. I saw some older windows on site had not yet been removed which appeared to be of a thinner profile and painted white, as photographic evidence also suggests.

The replacements on the historic core of the building that I saw and those on the plans are single glazed. The use of timber and monkey tail features reflect aspects of the windows removed and more historic ones. Nonetheless, from the evidence and my observations on site, the frames of the new windows have a thicker profile and look clearly modern despite being putty faced and having glazing bars. In addition, although their brown colour may change with aging, they currently they stand out in stark contrast to the ones that have been removed. The evidence suggests that the single glazed windows do not accurately match the ones that have been removed or a previous historic style relevant to the building. The windows currently in place and as shown on the plans have a far bulkier appearance and are a colour that stands out. They lack authenticity, are distracting and draw the eye. This detracts from the historic features and appearance of this part of the building.

The new windows on the rebuilt section of the building are standard size double glazed with thick frames and stick on glazing bars. The modern part of the building does have a greater capacity to accommodate change. Nevertheless, it has not been demonstrated that slimline double glazing is not viable or suitable. Although these elements of the windows would not be obvious from distant or public views, and double glazing has been approved and used on some other openings on this part of the building, these are distinctly different to the previous windows even with beading in and internal separators. They result in a heavy frame, considerably greater depth and additional reflection. These are not on the historic part of the building but are experienced with it and seen with the older elements in some views. The bulk and colour represent a distracting and jarring features drawing attention away from the historic core of the building.

From the evidence before me, including the Building Recording June 2022, some previous windows were top hung, while others were not. The replacements appear to match the previous style of opening. The bull’s eye panes are evidently replicas and not an authentic representation of historic glazing because they were typically used as a decorative feature in leaded lights. However, the plans show the same number and position of them as previous. Therefore, in regard to bull’s eyes and method of opening the scheme would not be more harmful than prior to the replacement. In the absence of compelling evidence of historic windows at the site, it is not necessary for the windows to be improvements on the ones recently removed.

However, the windows are noticeably new and have an obvious bulky modern character. The different proportions of the frames and glazing bars erode the traditional architecture of this building. Some double glazing has been approved at the property. Notwithstanding this, the appeal relates to a considerable number of windows on several elevations, including the front. They stand out and draw attention away from the attractive traditional architecture of the historic core of the building.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Due to the extent of the works, it would lead to a moderate level of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this would be of considerable importance and weight.

There would be public benefits from thermal and energy efficiency improvements and associated reduction in carbon emissions as well as from ensuring the building is watertight, preventing deterioration. However, as this relates to one dwelling, and it has not been shown the appeal scheme is the only way of achieving these aims, these benefits only attract limited weight. The continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is also not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

Consequently, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset, the conservation of which carries great weight. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building. It would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the Framework. Insofar as relevant the scheme would fail to accord with the design and heritage protection aims of Policies SWDP6, SWDP21 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

It is not for this appeal to consider whether or what subsequent enforcement action should take place.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.