Appeal 6001860

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Section 1(5) of the Act states that for the purposes of the Act, any object or structure fixed to the listed building shall be treated as part of the listed building. While the part of the building in which the appeal proposal relates is a later addition, it still forms part of the listed building for the purposes of Section 1(5). Furthermore, the appellant has submitted a listed building consent application for the proposed works and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

There is some debate within the evidence before me of the Council’s position in relation to the level of harm attributed. The Council has confirmed within their Statement of Case that they consider that the proposal would result in ‘less than substantial harm’; this concurs with the reason for refusal on the decision notice.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘ [site address] ’ (Ref: 1297225) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is a [name] listed building, which dates back to the 17th century. It is a timber framed dwelling which has a red brick façade, which is laid in Flemish bond and has a slate roof. The building has evolved over the centuries and has later additions, some which are finished with plaster and weatherboarding and have tiled roofs. There are a mix of windows on the building, including timber sash and casement windows and Crittall casement windows.

Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interest as an illustration of domestic architecture from the 17th century, which has evolved over the centuries. The building’s timber frame, the presence of traditional materials and fenestration, its surviving historic fabric and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards.

The proposal seeks to replace 4 nos. windows, which are sited on part of the building which was constructed in the 19th century. The windows are historic in character and have clearly been in place for some time. Consequently, they contribute to the historic narrative of the building and form part of its historic and architectural interest. The existing Crittall windows by reason of their traditional character, design, appearance and historic fabric make a positive contribution to the special interest of the listed building. While the Crittall windows are not specifically referenced in the list description, listings are primarily for identification purposes and do not provide an exhaustive or complete description of the special interest.

The appellant has drawn my attention to Historic England’s guidance entitled ‘[name]. This guidance advises that where windows make a positive contribution to the significance of listed buildings, they should be retained and repaired where possible. It continues to state that if such windows are beyond repair, they should be replaced with accurate copies. I observed on my site visit that the existing windows are in need of maintenance and repair. Among other things, there is evidence of corrosion, which is causing the openers to catch in their frames. There are also signs of condensation, which have caused damaged to the surrounding frames and windowsills. While the appellant’s condition survey recommends that these windows are replaced, there is no compelling evidence before me why they cannot be repaired. The appellant argues that some existing Crittall windows would be retained on the building, which would provide evidence of this phase of the evolution of the building. However, the proposal would result in the loss of historic fabric (albeit from a later phase of development of the building), which would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset.

The appellant argues that the design of the windows, including the glazing bar arrangement and colour would match the existing Crittall windows. However, the proposed windows would be constructed of a different material (timber), have a different glazing bar arrangement and thicker frames. The proposed windows would also be double glazed, which has different reflective qualities than single glazing. Although slimline double glazing is proposed, it would have a chunkier profile than the existing windows. Accordingly, the proposed windows would fail to accurately replicate the windows that would be replaced and would harm the authenticity and legibility of this phase of the building.

I appreciate that the majority of the windows on the listed building are made of timber and the proposal seeks to replicate the design of some of the other timber windows. Nonetheless, I find that the proposed windows would appear more modern in their appearance than the existing windows, would result in the loss of historic fabric and would erode the special interest of the listed building.

I appreciate that the proposed works would not be visible from the public realm. However, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme fails to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Given the nature and extent of the works, I find the harm to the significance of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 advises that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have clear and convincing justification.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which has a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The appellant argues that the new windows would improve the thermal efficiency of the building and the longevity of the openings, enhance weather tightness, reduce deterioration of historic fabric and result in improved acoustic performance. The appellant also advises that the proposal would reduce the ongoing maintenance burden; however, this is solely a private benefit.

Any improvements to the building’s thermal insulation and in respect to energy efficiency have not been quantified. Given that the proposal relates to a single property, any environmental benefits which would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal. It is clear that the benefits which would accrue would primarily be of a private nature. There is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the use of the building would cease in the absence of the proposed changes. As a result, I do not find them necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building. There is also no substantive evidence before me that similar benefits could not be obtained through repair works and alternative measures such as the installation of secondary glazing.

Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the proposal to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal fails to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework, which among other things require that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

I appreciate that no objection was raised from the Parish Council; however, this does not alter my finding set out above.

The appellant argues that the Crittall windows should have been included on the listing description in accordance with guidance published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport1. However, the building was listed in 1976, which was before the guidance that has been submitted was produced. Accordingly, I give this argument limited weight in my decision.

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