Appeal 6001931

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal is taken from the planning application form. The Council, in its decision notice, revised the description to clarify that the windows are first-floor windows on the east (front) elevation. This is evident from the submitted application plans, on which basis I have considered the appeal.

The appellant has submitted additional details about the proposed windows with their appeal. The new details, which include dimensions, show proposed windows that are more in keeping with the style of the existing windows than proposed in the planning application. However, the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals - England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Therefore, the appeal has been determined on the basis of the details submitted with the planning application. To do otherwise would prejudice the Council and interested parties, who have not been consulted on the additional information.

As the appeal site is within the Great Weston Conservation Area (the Conservation Area), I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located in the Grove and Montpelier sub-area of the Hillside character area within the Conservation Area. Hillside is predominantly of Victorian residential character.

The significance of the Conservation Area is its historic interest with high aesthetic and architectural value. As noted in the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, the historic interest in the Hillside area relates to early estate ownerships traced to the 1830s and 40s. Individual dwellings contribute to areas in terms of patterns of design, layout or the consistency of materials.

The Character Area Appraisal and Management Plan for Hillside adopted in 2018 (the Management Plan), notes loss of traditional historic building features, such as windows, as a negative feature in the area. Further, it sets out as noted by the appellant, that window replacements are commonplace and the cumulative impact can be significant in parts of the area. The Management Plan area-wide objectives include addressing the loss of historic features from buildings.

The appeal site is within [site address] , a substantial detached grey stone Victorian property with wooden sash windows. It is characteristic of the area and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. All the existing windows on the front elevation of [site address] are similar in style, being two over two glass panes (glass panes split horizontally) sash windows.

The proposed first floor window replacements do not replicate the existing style of sash windows. The details submitted with the planning application indicate two glass panes (split vertically) over single glass pane. Although dimensions were not provided with the details submitted as part of the planning application, the framing to the glass appears much thicker than the existing windows. The horizontal frame in the middle, where the top and bottom sashes meet when closed, appears particularly thick in comparison with the existing windows.

The details of the proposed first floor window replacements are noticeably different to the existing windows on the ground floor. The proposed windows would look discordant in the front elevation of [site address] and would diminish the contribution the building makes, as a whole, to the Conservation Area. Consequently, it would further erode the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appellant notes that a significant number of properties have had replacement windows. On the basis of the evidence it is not clear when these were installed and whether they pre-date the Management Plan. However, they do show the cumulative harmful impact which such changes are having on the Conservation Area, and on that basis they do not provide justification for further harm.

The proposal would result in harm to the Conservation Area. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear, that when considering the impact of a proposal on a designated heritage asset (in this case the Conservation Area), great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Further that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that this should have clear justification. The proposal would diminish the contribution that [site address] makes to the Conservation Area and I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant’s statement indicates the proposal would result in preservation of the building’s appearance, improved energy efficiency and reduced maintenance costs. There is no information before me regarding the energy efficiency of the proposed windows, compared with other window options, but I afford the public benefit of improved energy efficiency and maintenance limited weight.

Given the above and in the absence of any defined significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and conflict with policies CS5 and CS12 of the [site address] Council Core Strategy (2017) and policies DM3 and DM32 of the [site address] Council Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 (July 2016). These policies require development to conserve or enhance heritage assets and local character. As a result, the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan.

I conclude therefore that the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework, and it would not be in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole. Having considered all matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.