Appeal 6001954

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, I have removed wording which refers to the number of windows and the absence of changes to the building generally, as this is contextual information which is not a description of development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced dwelling which forms part of a large two-storey detached building, which is located in a residential area. The building has a uniform appearance overall. This is particularly the case for its front elevation, due in part to its consistent gables, architectural details and materials. The front elevation is also highly prominent and visible along [address]. Overall, with its coherent appearance and prominent siting, the building as a whole, including the appeal dwelling which is an integral part of it, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the street scene.

The uniform appearance of the building’s front elevation is strengthened by its consistent window pattern, design and materials. Although there are no detailed plans of the existing windows on the front elevation before me, they all appear to be original sliding timber sash windows. Even though the windows vary in size, they all have thin frames and thin glazing bars. In general terms, the timber frames also have a high-quality and natural appearance. Therefore, the consistency and quality of the window pattern, design and materials on the front elevation also contributes positively to the appearance of the building and the character of the area.

The proposed double glazed upvc sliding sash windows as depicted in the ‘[name] [name] document do not appear to be like for like replacements of the existing windows at the building. They would be formed of noticeably thicker frame dimensions compared to the thinner timber frames of the existing windows. The upvc is likely to have an artificial plastic appearance which would contrast with the more natural appearance of the timber framed windows. Consequently, the design and materials of the proposed windows would unacceptably contrast with the existing windows on the front elevation of the appeal dwelling and the wider building. This would harmfully erode the uniform appearance of the building and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Rather than facing the main part of [address], the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling and the building as a whole encloses a courtyard parking area. It has a different appearance to the front elevation due to its more fragmented design and materials. The window layout and sizes on the rear elevation are more varied than the windows on the front elevation. Many of the windows on the rear elevation are formed of upvc. Accordingly, the rear elevation has a less consistent appearance than the front elevation and is less prominent in the street scene. In this context, the proposed upvc windows to the rear elevation would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Even so, this does not justify the harm that would be caused to the front elevation.

I am aware that there is a upvc conservatory at one of the neighbouring properties at the building. However, this is on a side elevation and it is barely perceptible in the street scene. Therefore, from my own observations, the conservatory does not have a significant impact on the appearance of the building, and its presence does not justify the proposal.

Whilst some of the other dwellings on [address] have upvc windows, these are separate from the appeal property. It is not the same as the appeal dwelling which is an integral part of the building as a whole, whereby harmful alterations to the appeal property would cause harm to the appearance of the building overall. Consequently, the use of upvc at other dwellings in the area does not justify the proposal.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (2017) and Policy KP13 of the Kenilworth Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2029 (made in 2018), which amongst other matters, require that developments positively contribute to the character and quality of the environment and respond to the site’s characteristics and surroundings including in terms of architectural detailing and materials.

I understand that the additional cost of installing and maintaining timber windows is a prohibitive factor for the appellant. I also acknowledge the concerns regarding the condition of the windows and that they suffer from condensation. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence of the costs of alternative options or the specific issues with the existing windows. Furthermore, most of the other windows on the front elevation of the building appear to be in good condition, suggesting that further repair of the windows might be possible. Consequently, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the condition of the windows and the costs of alternatives are sufficient reasons to allow the appeal.

I also note the appellant’s comments in terms of the energy efficiency benefits of the proposed windows. However, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that this proposal is the only means by which such benefits would be achieved. Therefore, such benefits do not justify the proposal.

Even though the property is not a listed building and is not in a conservation area, this does not obviate the need for good design quality which respects the character and appearance of the area. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

The absence of objections from the Town Council and neighbours is a neutral factor which does not weigh in favour of the appeal. I also note that one letter of support was received. However, this does not overcome the harm identified under

The appellant’s concerns regarding the way in which the Council dealt with the application, including pre-application advice and the absence of an Article 4 Direction, whilst frustrating for the appellant, are not reasons to allow the appeal.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.