Appeal 6003049

Appeal A: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement windows at [site address] , [site address] , Gawcott [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01942/APP, and the plans submitted with it.

Appeal B: The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for replacement windows at [site address] , [site address] , Gawcott [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/1943/ALB and the plans submitted with it, 21-33-102C Proposed Site Layout Plan, 21-33-501 T4 [name], 21 33-503 T3 [name] W03, W09, W12 and 21-33-507 T4 Elevations with [name].

I have removed the word retrospective from the description of development above, as it does not describe development. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I saw on site that the windows are in place, in accordance with the plans before me, and I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The appeal property is the [name] listed building known as ‘[name] and [name], which is located within the Gawcott Conservation Area (CA). In reaching my decisions, I have considered the statutory duties under Appeal Decisions 6003049 & 6003051 sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter

The main issues in this case are whether the works preserve the listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name].

The appeal property is a grade II listed building1 fronting the [address] within the settlement of Gawcott. The two storey property was listed in 1952 and consists of what was originally two separate cottages with a shed deriving from the late 17th century. It has since been remodelled, including the demolition of the frontage of the second cottage to create the current linear form. It is formed of red brick in English bond on a coursed squared limestone plinth, with a plain-tile roof and brick ridge stack.

The significant repair work both externally and internally so that the original 3-unit through-passage plan is somewhat obscured and there are substantial clearly modern additions/repairs, however the original farmhouse character remains evident.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of mid late 17 century vernacular domestic architecture which has evolved over time. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are extant historic fabric and key historic features and detailing.

Pertinent to the appeal, the listing description refers to ‘leaded horizontal oval windows to ground floor and first floors left of centre with some original glass... Cross windows to ground floor right, which flank blocked doorway, all with flat - arched heads. Similar windows to first floor. Moulded brick coping to plinth and moulded brick string course. Cross windows to right side elevations and to rear.’ These timber windows were of a form, design, materials and finish that were in keeping with the age and style of the property. They provided a degree of authenticity to the fenestration. In these respects, the fenestration contributed in a positive way to the architectural integrity of the property and therefore its special interest and significance.

[name] is centred around [address], and I observed that the significance of the CA as a whole largely derives from its rich and cohesive number of vernacular historic 18th or 19th Century buildings, in addition to some earlier 16th and 17th century properties, which form a fine and consistent townscape. There is a variety in visible window styles, including numerous examples of 2 over 4 pane designs. 1 [name]:1205840 Appeal Decisions 6003049 & 6003051

As a vernacular 17th century building, [site address] contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

Significant recent construction2 has been undertaken at the property, and details relating to the windows were submitted under further applications3, including a comprehensive survey of the condition of the windows that was undertaken by [name]. The window survey considered the condition of all windows and highlighted the general poor condition of the building, the result of many years of the building being vacant. The survey included the findings of [name] who reviewed each window to understand if they could be re-used. The survey found that all of the windows were subject to rot and decay and were beyond repair and therefore required replacement.

As such there is no dispute between the parties that the condition of the windows at this point necessitated their replacement. From what I have seen in the submission and from the retained examples on site, I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The dispute between the main parties relate to the form of the ‘original’ windows. The Council maintain that the farmhouse’s ‘original historic windows’ for the 17th Century main element of the house were in place at the time of the original redevelopment application (2012/2013), sat behind an overlaid frame and visible from inside the listed building. It is stated that their significance as a cruciform 2 over 2 original window design for a number of the front and rear windows was ‘well established and accepted by all parties.’

The appellant disputes this and claims that this is conjecture, and the suggestion that the windows on the front and rear elevation of the 17th century part of the building were 2 over 2 panes are ‘entirely unfounded and unproven’.

The photographs provided, including those taken before redevelopment works and older historic photographs, illustrate 2 over 4 designs. There is no substantive evidence before me therefore that, even if the two over two design was original, that these survived.

The submitted window survey and examples of removed windows retained on site for my observations included an integral central glass bar. The windows installed mirror this design.

The double glazing would not reflect the construction of traditional windows however the timber, thickness of frames, glazing bars and other details reflect the replaced widows, and the slimline nature of the double glazing does not have an obviously deeper profile or increased reflectivity.

As such, even if they did not match the original historic design, they mirror the visible long time design of fenestration at the property. Overall, in this instance, from what has been submitted and from what I observed, the installed windows match the merit of the previous windows and do not unacceptably alter their character. In this way they are in keeping with the age and style of the property and retain a suitable degree of authenticity. They do not erode the character of the listed building nor alter the ability to appreciate its significance. 2 Including approval references 22/00883/APP & 22/00847/LAB 3 Application 22/D3924/DIS Appeal Decisions 6003049 & 6003051

This traditional appearance also ensures that the windows are in keeping and sit comfortably within the surrounding vernacular buildings of the CA. They therefore preserve the character of the CA as a whole.

I conclude therefore that the windows preserve the listed building and its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses; and preserves the character and appearance of the Gawcott Conservation Area. For these reasons, the appeal scheme does not conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and satisfies the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also no conflict with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2021) which, amongst other matters, require that development complements and respects the character of its context the locality and that the historic environment be preserved or enhanced.

The Council has submitted a suggested condition were the appeals to be allowed. I have considered this having regard to the advice set out in both the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

The works are authorised on the basis of the submitted plans and any material departure from them would be unauthorised. A separate plans condition for either appeal is therefore unnecessary.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all the other matters raised, I conclude that the appeals should be allowed.