Appeal 6002447

The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for Listed Building Consent for replacement of four Gothic windows on East elevation of 1950s two storey extension.

The appeal is against the refusal of listed building consent for works to a listed building. The building also lies within a conservation area. I have therefore had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The application was submitted after the window replacement works had already been carried out. All of the windows are now in situ. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the works have already occurred, having regard to the application plans and information.

The appeal relates to two flats located within an extension to the east elevation of the listed building. The appellants refer to this addition as dating to the ‘1950s’, based on it being present on a photograph dating to 1955 and absent from an [name] (OS) Map that was published in 1957. Mindful that OS data frequently takes some time to be updated, I do not find this convincing evidence of a specific 1950s date of construction. Indeed, this could have been constructed some years earlier. The list description date of twentieth century therefore appears a more appropriate reference point in this instance. My assessment is on this basis.

The main issue is whether the works that have been carried out preserve the [name]* listed building [name], or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

[name] was constructed as a two storey rubble dwelling in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century. The house was raised to three storeys in the mid eighteenth century when the plinth and central front porch was added. At this time ashlar sandstone was used to face the side and rear elevations with castellations added to the gables. The pointed arch and quatrefoil windows with tracery were also added to the side and rear of the building. The twelve pane sash windows to the front alongside the porch and central pediment underline a symmetry to this elevation that is not present to the other parts of the building.

The special interest and significance of the listed building derive from its architectural and historic interest as a fine late seventeenth or early eighteenth century dwelling with extensive mid-eighteenth century alterations. Key contributors in these regards are its considerable age, evidence of its evolution over time, the careful composition of the front elevation, and its pointed arch and quatrefoil windows with their intricate tracery exhibiting high levels of craftsmanship.

The twentieth century addition to the east is understood to have been added as part of the dwelling’s conversion to a hotel in this period. It is a rendered structure with a flat roof comprising of three storeys and incorporating some simplified elements of the principal building such as the castellations to the parapet and the fenestration designs. The incorporation of these elements in a small way reinforces the special interest and significance of the listed building, although the addition is clearly identifiable as a later structure owing to the arrangement of fenestration and its simpler appearance. In that sense it illustrates the evolution of the building over time from a dwelling for a wealthy individual to a hotel and later, more recently to residential flats.

The list description describes the windows in the ground floor of the east elevation of the twentieth century addition as ‘four large pointed-arched windows on right return which were originally on gable end of main house’. Whilst there is little evidence of the precise age of the windows, these are likely to have dated to at least the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, through being removed from their original location and relocated to a twentieth century extension, hence no longer in-situ, the windows contribution to the special interest and significance of the listed building will have been diminished.

Nonetheless these four windows would still have had some value in terms of the embedded craftsmanship, and from their age and their relationship with the windows in the north elevation. Furthermore, they were a visual link to the east elevation before the construction of the twentieth century extension, contributing to an understanding the building’s evolution over time.

The evidence before me indicates that the four windows were of traditional construction with genuine glazing bars separating individual panes. From the limited photographic evidence, I can also see that there was a high degree of consistency in terms of the thickness of glazing bars, frames and the meeting rail, as is typical in traditional finely detailed sliding sash windows. Indeed, the proportions of the windows that were removed appear to closely reflect those that currently exist in the north elevation. In that regard the windows were well-related to the building.

I accept that the appellants acted in good faith in removing the four windows based on advice that they were beyond repair and that they were being replaced ‘like-for-like’. However, the confirmation that the windows were beyond repair appears to have been received from a builder and a decorator rather than a joiner or someone specialising in heritage window repair. There also does not appear to have been a detailed assessment carried out prior to the removal, notwithstanding the production of the short letter after the works were complete.

The two photographs provided shows some deterioration around the frame of one window where a small section of bare wood is exposed. The other three windows are not shown. This is not convincing evidence that any of the windows are at the advanced stage of deterioration that is denoted by the term ‘beyond repair’. I therefore cannot be certain that some, or all, of the windows could not have been repaired, nor that elements such as individual sashes, or historic glass, could not have been retained.

Notwithstanding the ex-situ location, the loss of a substantial amount of historic fabric comprising of four distinctive windows is an irreversible change that has undoubtedly eroded the special interest and significance of the listed building. Given that the windows no longer exist it is not possible to reverse the specific harm caused by their loss.

The windows that have been installed in their place comprise of standard thickness double glazing with false glazing bars. There is a lack of consistency in the thickness of the glazing bars, the frames and the meeting rail, with the latter being notably thicker than on the traditional windows. They thus fail to closely replicate the proportions of the surviving Gothic windows or those that have been removed. Moreover, the false glazing bars, lack of individual panes and the thickness of the glazing are easily evident in closer views including from within the building itself. Seen in the same context as the other Gothic windows on the building, the harm arising from the replacement windows is highly evident.

I note that the double-glazed doors and windows have been installed across both the twentieth century addition and the principal building. I also note that the Council has granted listed building consent for the central Gothic double-glazed window on the east elevation as this replaced an earlier doorway. Whilst the Council has highlighted the reasons for these approvals, their presence does not justify the loss of further historic fabric or the installation of windows that fail to reflect the proportions of windows that contribute positively to the architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

I have had regard to the Historic England guidance1 referred to by both parties: This sets out that windows which contribute positively to a building's special interest through their historic fabric and design should not be replaced and that stuck-on or applied glazing bars rarely replicate the character of historic windows and are unlikely to be acceptable. Whilst mindful that this is only guidance and 1 [name] for Energy and Carbon Efficiency Historic England Advice Note 18 (HEAN 18) (2026). cannot envisage every scenario, this nonetheless reinforces my above

For the above reasons the works that have been carried out fail to preserve the [name]* listed building [name]. This would be contrary to the requirements of section 16(2) of the Act. For the same reasons the proposal would cause harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

The harm that I have identified equates to less than substantial harm to this designated heritage asset. Accordingly, paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of proposals, including securing its optimum viable use.

Having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance as to what constitutes a public benefit, it is clear 'preventing any future problems with the sale of the building’ is not such a benefit. Furthermore, there is little evidence before me that without the replacement of the windows the flats would have been incapable of continuing in residential use, a use which is unlikely to cease in the absence of consent for the works.

The provision of double glazing where previously there was single glazing would likely improve the thermal efficiency of the flats, potentially reducing carbon consumption and, in that regard, would represent a public benefit. However, it has not been demonstrated that such a benefit could not be achieved by more sensitive means such as repair and upgrade of the existing windows, or the provision of windows incorporating slim double glazed units. This limits the weight I can attribute to this benefit.

The Framework requires me to give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. Mindful of the status of the [name]* listed building as an asset of the highest significance, the Framework is clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

Taking the above together, the public benefits I have outlined would not justify allowing a proposal that would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. I am therefore not persuaded there would be public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the great weight to the asset's conservation and considerable importance and weight to the less than substantial harm identified to the significance of the asset.

In light of the above, I conclude that the works that have been carried out fail to preserve the [name]* listed building [name]. Hence, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the heritage aims of Policies ENV1 and ENV7 of the Northumberland Local Plan (the NLP) and the provisions within the Framework that seek to conserve heritage assets.

The other policies referred to on the Council’s Decision Notice relate to conservation areas, which I have considered below.

I appreciate the costs that the appellants have incurred in installing the windows, however, my role is to assess the effect of the replacement windows on the special interest and significance of the listed building. I also acknowledge that the installation of the windows was against a background of trying to rectify damp problems, high levels of condensation and poor energy performance. However, there is nothing before me to suggest that these problems could only be resolved through wholesale removal and replacement of the windows with those that have been installed.

Whilst not forming part of the Council’s reasons for refusal the appeal site also lies within the Beadnell Conservation Area (the CA). Owing to its considerable age and architectural and historic interest [name] is a key building, seen from its access road and in views from the caravan park to the north, it contributes significantly to its character and appearance and thus its special interest and significance. The windows are located at the ground floor of the east elevation, and as such are not visible from outside of the appeal site, even being screened from neighbouring land by the adjacent boundary features. As such the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved as required by the Act. There would be compliance in this regard with Policy ENV9 of the NLP and Policies 10 and 12 of the North Northumberland Coast Neighbourhood Plan

For the reasons given, having considered the development plan as a whole, the requirements of the Act and the Framework, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.