Appeal 6001302

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6001302

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal concerns works to listed buildings, which are in a conservation area. As required by sections 16(2), 66( [site address] ) and 72( [site address] )of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and paid special attention to the desirability of the preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The pair of appeals relate to the same overall proposal. They differ only in that Appeal A is for planning permission to replace the existing timber windows and doors with uPVC type windows and timber doors. Appeal B is for listed building consent for the same works. I have considered each part of the proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two parts of the proposal together, except where otherwise indicated.

In my determination of Appeal B, I have had regard to the development plan policies cited on the Council’s decision notice where material. However, I am not obliged to determine the appeal in accordance with them.

In the banner heading above, I have taken the appeal site address from the appellant’s original application form. The appeal relates to a terrace of properties on [address]. However, the list entry for number [address] states [address] but I am content given the description and the site plan, that it relates to one of the appeal properties. Number [site address] [address] is not statutorily listed.

The reason for refusal in the Council’s decision notice omits reference to the replacement timber doors. The Council did not raise issue with this element of the proposal. Based on the evidence before me and the proposed use of timber, I see no reason to take an opposing view.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: • preserve the significance of the grade II listed buildings, [site address] and [site address] [address] and 8 Market Place1 and any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess; • whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal properties form part of a terrace situated on a steep, narrow, cobbled street that was formerly an early thoroughfare into the [address], in the historic town centre of [site address] . The alignment and buildings of [address] form part of the historic street pattern of the Old Town and evidence 19th century architecture. For the purposes of this appeal the significance of the listed terrace includes the use of simple, locally sourced natural materials and traditional detailing- specifically their traditional stone construction and stone slate roof, and original architectural features such as timber framed, single glazed vertical sliding sash windows in principle facades, and stone mullioned windows to the rear. Whilst not all the properties are listed, and despite changes over time to the windows, the buildings form a coherent historic ensemble. All of which contribute to the significance of the heritage assets.

There is some cohesion in the vernacular character and architectural heritage of these domestic buildings with their stepped building lines, local materials and traditional detailing that contributes to the character and appearance of the CA. Their elevated position, which draws the eye upward, affords the terrace added visual prominence within the townscape. As such, the terrace positively and significantly contributes to the character and appearance of the CA and thereby its significance as a heritage asset. [site address] [site address] [address] List entry number: 1088029; [site address] [address] List entry number: 1298796; [address] List entry number: 1052220.

The windows in the appeal properties have been replaced over time. The existing windows are of little to no architectural or historic interest and in a very poor condition. Some windows are double glazed, with top hung hinged casement opening mechanisms. Notwithstanding this, the existing windows are timber framed, as is traditional and reflective of the local vernacular. The proposed replacement windows would introduce uPVC, which is a non-traditional material, thereby exacerbating the harm arising from the existing windows and eroding the significance of the listed buildings.

In the absence of evidence to establish the pattern of the original or pre-existing windows, the detailing of the proposed windows has been taken from the existing windows within the appeal properties and with regard to nearby buildings of similar date and style. However, whilst the proposed replacement windows are sliding sashes, they differ from their likely historic counterparts, not least in the introduction of non- traditional uPVC.

Despite the design intent for the proposed replacement windows to reflect the design cues of traditional timber sliding sash windows, there are distinct differences, which together would worsen the existing situation and diminish the significance of the listed terrace. These are: the uPVC has a modern, flat appearance, which lacks the depth and texture of natural wood grain; the thicker window frames necessary to accommodate sealed units would be at odds with the lighter, finer character of traditional timber windows in which glazing was held in place with putty rather than beading and spacers; the double glazing would have a modern, reflective appearance, which fails to reflect the lively nature of single glazing. These differences fail to replicate a traditional timber sliding sash window and substantially alter the visual quality of the window.

For these reasons, the proposed replacement windows do not reflect authentic detailing, rather they would be inappropriate by reasons of the non-traditional material finish, thicker frames and standard double-glazed units. As such, the proposal represents a missed opportunity to install sensitive, accurate replacement windows which would enhance, rather than undermine, the architectural and heritage significance of the terrace.

The proposed wholesale window replacement would address the inconsistent and non-traditional opening mechanisms evident in the existing windows. Notwithstanding this, the identified harm arising from installation of the proposed uPVC replacement windows would go beyond that of the existing windows, by reason of loss of traditional material, specifically, timber.

The appellant sought to justify wholesale window replacement on grounds of introducing an upgraded thermal performance in the interests of energy efficiency. It is accepted that there would be improved thermal performance. However, it has not been demonstrated that the installation of uPVC double-glazed windows is the only way to improve thermal performance and amenity.

Furthermore, the proposal includes the installation of buff square patterned air bricks to address concerns around ventilation arising from the impact of the proposed sealed double-glazed units. The proposed air bricks would be utilitarian in appearance and numerous, being at odds with the façade, and would result in the loss of historic fabric.

For these reasons, I have found that the proposed replacement windows would be harmful to the special interest and significance of these listed buildings. The proposal would fail to preserve these listed buildings and features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. I find that there would be less than substantial harm, towards the mid-point of the scale, in relation to the significance of the designated heritage assets, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

I have found the appeal proposal would harm the significance of the listed terrace. Given my finding that these listed buildings contribute to the character and appearance of the CA, it follows that the CA would also be harmed through the proposal.

The inappropriate uPVC replacement windows would introduce visual discord within the tight, stepped streetscape, where even subtle alterations would be noticeable. Thereby eroding the coherence of the historic group and damaging the architectural character of the listed buildings, which contribute significantly to the sum of architectural and historic interest of the CA. The proposed replacement uPVC windows would therefore erode the distinctive character and appearance of the CA.

I acknowledge that variety in window types and styles is evident in the CA. However, modern windows are limited in the context of the CA as a whole. Nonetheless, the Act requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, against which test, the effect of this proposal on the appearance of the CA, fails.

Paragraph 213 of the Framework stipulates that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Moreover, paragraph 212 advises that when considering the impact of development of the significance of the designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The appellant is of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial because it would enhance the amenity and thermal performance of the property, improve security and reduce the maintenance. These are primarily private benefits. The marginal public benefit in terms of improved thermal efficiency and reduced carbon emissions is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the same benefit could not be achieved by more sensitively selected window materials. In any event, the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

The current use of these buildings is the optimum viable use, and whether the windows are changed or not will have no significant impact on the buildings’ use.

I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural interest of the grade II listed buildings. It would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. Therefore, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and development plan policy insofar as relevant.

As such, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed development would be contrary to the following policies of the High Peak Local Plan (2016): Policy EQ6 Design and [name] which states that all development should be well designed to respect and contribute positively to the character, identity and context of [name] townscapes, having regard to appearance and materials, amongst other matters; and Policy EQ7 Built and [name], which states that the Council will conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, taking into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance. It will ensure that development proposals contribute positively to the character of the built environment.

All matters have been taken into account in reaching my decisions on these appeals.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.