Appeal 6000907

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed works would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the host building and the Fairfields Conservation Area (the FCA).

The FCA is a small conservation area predominantly divided between residential dwellings and community spaces such as a school, church, playing fields and public house. The FCA spans a broad time period with evidence of ancient roads but it is buildings form the 19th century up to the First World War, that are most prominently displayed. I find the significance of this conservation area stems in part from the extent to which development of this time period is still intact and legible within the street scape. This includes the presence of traditional materials, proportions and designs.

The appeal building is identified as a “notable building” on the FCA plan and, therefore, considered to be a non-designated heritage (NDHA) asset by the Council. The appeal building forms the right side of a semi-detached pair close to the end of [address] near the junction with [address]. The pair are mirrored with a bay window on the ground floor and two windows on the first floor. The windows serving the bay on the host building are PVC but the upper floor windows, and those serving the adjoining property are timber. All of the windows across the front of the two properties appear to be sash windows. This building contributes to the FCA and I find its significance is somewhat elevated as a result.

At the time of my site visit it was clear that the host building’s first-floor windows were tired and in a state of somewhat disrepair. I have not, however, been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the first-floor windows are so damaged as to make repair unviable. Moreover, and while I have been provided with details of the proposed windows, including sections, I have not been provided with any details of the existing frames. I cannot, therefore, ensure that the replacement frames would suitably reflect the proportions and detailing, such as the horns and moulding, of the existing frames. I have also not been provided with details of the proposed woodgrain either.

The timber windows make an important contribution to the NDHA, and their loss here would be detrimental to its architectural and historic interest. There is a further risk that harm would arise through their inappropriate replacement given the limited details before me. The overall harm is exacerbated by the prominent location of the first-floor front windows in close proximity to an identified viewpoint within the FCA. As a consequence, the proposal would erode the significance of the NDHA and the contribution it makes to the FCA to its detriment.

Against this background, and given the scale of the development, I find that a low degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, the FCA, would occur. Although less than substantial, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that great weight should be given to any asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would, by replacing the existing damaged windows, better secure the dwelling against long-term damage from the ingress of damp. Moreover, the quality of accommodation would be improved through the provision of double glazing to the benefit of the local housing stock. However, it has not been demonstrated that this would be the only, or least harmful, way of achieving these benefits.

I have had regard to the letter submitted by the appellant concerning their medical needs. The proposal would, through the reduction in damp and improvement to heat retention, be beneficial to the appellant’s health. Although this is primarily a personal benefit, it would also carry some public benefit as a result of lessening the knock-on effects that stem from ill-health.

[name] am mindful that the appellant has undertaken other works to the dwelling in order to improve its appearance and relationship with the conservation area, these works are not related to the appeal before me.

The public benefits of this proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the FCA as a result of the identified harm to the NDHA. As such, the proposal does not preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the NDHA and FCA and therefore conflicts with Policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. These collectively, and amongst other matters, require proposals to be of a high quality design that conserves or enhances the historic environment and local character with particular regard to materials, design and detailing. The proposal also conflicts with the Framework, including Section 16 and the Paragraphs outlined above. It also conflicts with the guidance contained within the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document that seeks to retain and repair timber windows where possible, and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document that promotes the use of materials appropriate to the age of a building. I have also been mindful of the Fairfields Conservation Area Appraisal and the advice by Historic England in my determination of this appeal.

My attention has been drawn to a number of dwellings where replacement UPVC windows have been permitted. These are namely properties on [address], [address], [address] and [address]. I have not been provided with the full details and facts of these applications and decisions. Whilst other planning and appeal decisions are capable of being material considerations, all decisions turn on their own particular circumstances based on the facts and evidence before those decision-makers or Inspectors at the time. From the information available to me I can ascertain that these examples are not within the FCA and are some distance from the appeal site. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

The proposal would harm the historic and architectural significance of the NDHA and FCA and would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.