Appeal 6002552

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is within St Agnes Moseley Conservation Area (CA) therefore 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 CA.

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

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a pitched roof and a gable end feature to the front elevation with a two-storey bay window. The existing windows are timber framed with diamond leaded lights.

The CA’s significance derives from its historic and architectural value. The St Agnes Moseley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP), identifies the CA as being a well-preserved Edwardian suburban housing area with later additions from the 1920s that follow a similar style. The semi-detached properties on [address], including the appeal site, are included in the latter and are simpler in design than the earlier Edwardian properties.

The appeal site contributes positively to the significance of the CA through its collective value with the other semi-detached dwellings on [address], being of one original development. The CAAMP notes that some window replacements are evident on [address], but these have retained the historic leaded light patterns.

The proposed development seeks to replace the existing windows with uPVC replacements. The CAAMP advises against the use of uPVC as most products are unable to accurately replicate glazing bar and leaded light patterns. The plans provided do not show sufficient detail to determine whether the proposal would closely replicate the existing windows. In the brochure provided, the examples appear to have considerably bulkier frames than the existing timber windows. I therefore cannot be satisfied that the proposal would maintain the consistent appearance of the windows and building.

The appropriateness of a window or door is also not solely related to the visual appearance, but the authenticity of the materials used and how this relates to the heritage value of the building and its surroundings. The reduction in use of traditional materials and the uncharacteristic alteration of the appearance of the windows would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building and its contribution to the CA.

In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm identified would be less than substantial harm, which Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Due to the scale of the development, its position on the edge of the CA and the appeal sites contribution being in its collective value rather than its individual contribution, I find the harm caused would be on the lower end of less than substantial harm.

I acknowledge that utilising uPVC windows would reduce the required maintenance, would be more thermally efficient and would reduce running costs of the dwelling, however these are primarily private and not public benefits. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be attributed to the conservation of heritage assets. As such the benefits would not outweigh the harm, and the proposal would be in conflict with the Framework.

For the reasons above the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of s72(1) of the Act. The proposal would fail to comply with paragraph 215 of the Framework and would conflict with Policy TP12 [name] and Policy PG3 [name] both of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seeks among other things, to protect the historic environment and that development should respond to local context.

It has been highlighted by the appellant that the brand and make of window proposed has been found acceptable in conservation areas elsewhere. I am not aware of any official accreditation, and there is no evidence to suggest that they would be acceptable in every conservation area and in every circumstance where a window replacement on a historic building is sought.

In support of the appeal, I have also been referred to several other properties in the CA where uPVC windows have been utilised. I saw on my site visit that these are in the minority. I also do not have the full details of whether these developments obtained planning permission or otherwise. In any case I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

In conclusion, the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the heritage asset and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA. The benefits put forward would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal and therefore it is contrary to the Framework. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which would outweigh the conflict.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.