Appeal 6001219

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of front first and second floor windows, frames and cills with uPVC windows, frames and cills at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00441/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In my above decision, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than that in the application form and above banner heading. The decision notice description is more concise and accurately describes the proposal. I have however added reference to window frames and cills, for clarity.

The appeal site (No 11) and surrounding buildings are within the Oakmount Triangle Conservation Area (OTCA). I note that the [name] and Management Plan (CAMP) refers to an Article 4 Direction. This removes permitted development rights for, amongst other things, alterations to the front of a dwellinghouse, including the size, shape and design of windows. Both abovementioned descriptions of development refer to front windows only. Therefore, whilst the proposed plans before me include windows on elevations other than the front of No 11, those are not for consideration under this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the OTCA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. From what I have seen and read, the significance of the OTCA as a whole is derived in part from its secluded street layout, well enclosed by common land and tree lines, with just one public vehicular entrance. This provides a pleasant suburban character.

There is an abundance of generally well-preserved early 20th century buildings, and some later and modern buildings, indicating a degree of evolution over time. Older dwellings tend to have large bay window features, often including various fanlight detailing. Most frontages contain wooden windows, of varying traditional casement or sash design, generally painted white. These built features can be clearly appreciated as a further integral component of the OTCA’s significance.

No 11 comprises a detached two-storey dwelling with second floor front dormer. It contains a large brick chimney visible from the road and a pair of front bays across two floors, with decorative gables above the bays and dormer. The ground floor bay windows are wooden, painted white and externally, appear in good condition and of traditional appearance, with dark butt hinges and fanlight lead detailing. No 11 therefore forms a positive contribution to the significance of the OTCA.

Externally, No 11’s upper floor front bay and dormer windows and frames show signs of deterioration. They are also of traditional appearance and painted white, but are of plain design when compared to the more decorative windows below, and many surrounding examples. The appellant has demonstrated that the upper floor fabric sought to be replaced is softwood and not historic. At best, this upper floor fabric forms a neutral contribution to the OTCA’s significance.

The CAMP seeks to resist uPVC front elevation windows, and I noted a number of uPVC examples throughout the OTCA that often detract from its significance. However, the proposed windows would sit flush with their new framed surrounds, with hinges to match existing. The uPVC would have a grained white colouring to avoid an overly artificial or shiny appearance. The proposed trickle vents would have limited external profiles. Although the glazing and framing width and height proportions would not be the same as existing, the differences would be minor.

Whilst the proposed windows would be of modern structure, including glazing depth and trickle vents, and would unlikely weather down over time, for the above reasons they would not form an unsympathetic replacement of existing fabric. The proposed design and appearance would also avoid a discordant relationship with the ground floor wooden windows below.

On balance, I conclude that the appeal proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the OTCA. It therefore complies with Saved Policy HE1 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (adopted 2015) and Saved Policy CS14 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document ([name] incorporating the [name] 2015). [name] have found no harm in this respect, it is not necessary for me to consider potential alternative designs or measures.

A condition specifying a time limit for the development (No 1) is necessary in the interests of planning certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plan details. Conditions 3 and 4 are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the OTCA. I have amended the Council’s suggested wording to better reflect the specifics of the development. I have deleted the suggested tailpiece wording, including “unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”, as any amendments to the development would in any event require additional permission from the Council.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: location plan (dated 31 March 2025); main bed bay window, front loft room and guest bay window details (undated).

The replacement windows hereby permitted must be installed flush to the surrounding new external frames, and all windows, frames and cills hereby permitted must employ a grained white finish.

All works of repair to surrounding fabric affected by the installation of the development hereby permitted must employ materials, traditional workmanship, and detailing to match the existing in all respects. ***End of Schedule***