Appeal 6003083

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement windows and doors, and replacement roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/0379/FUL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and retained thereafter in accordance with the following approved plans: • Location plan (received by local planning authority on 24 July 2025 • Proposed elevations Sheet 1 (Dwg no. KRM 03 [name], July 2025) • Proposed elevations Sheet 2 (Dwg no. KRM 04 [name], July 2025)

An application for costs was made by [name] against Middlesbrough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Although it was used on the planning application form, I have omitted the word “retrospective” from the description of the development in the banner heading and my formal decision above as it is not in itself descriptive of development. Nevertheless, the works for which planning permission is sought have commenced, and I was able to view them in place during my site visit.

I also saw during my visit that external metal grilles have been installed to the ground floor windows on the appeal property. These were not part of the submitted appeal scheme, and do not form part of the planning permission granted by my

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including on a non-designated heritage asset (“NDHA”).

The appeal relates to an early-Edwardian building in the [name] area of Middlesbrough. It was built as a Methodist community hall, though the Methodist church or chapel itself which once stood alongside was demolished some time ago. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with the commercial area at the centre of [name] a short way to the north-west; there are also some community uses nearby. The property is a two-storey building of red brick with hipped pitched roofs, and large window openings to the [address] and [address] elevations. The timber-framed single-glazed sliding sash windows previously in place have been replaced with double-glazed casement windows with dark grey uPVC frames, and timber doors replaced with steel-faced timber doors. The natural roof slates have been replaced with dark grey tiles, described in the appellant’s submissions as “artificial slate”.

The Council considers the appeal property to be of local historic importance as a result of its evidential value (its design and materials reflecting both the development of [name] itself and the needs of the local Methodist community) and its communal value as a community hall, and therefore that it should be treated as an NDHA. The appellant disputes this, noting that the building is not on the Council’s “local list” of NDHAs, and that it has been unused for around 20 years.

While the definition of heritage asset in the glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) includes assets which are locally-listed, it is not a prerequisite that an NDHA must be on a local list. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that “local planning authorities may also identify non-designated heritage assets as part of the decision-making process on planning applications”1.

Though not especially large or grand in itself, the appeal property’s scale and form identify it a building of some significance within the context of the tightly-knit streets of relatively modest terrace housing around it, and it therefore stands out as something of a visual landmark. It is also evident from submissions during the planning application consultation that some residents valued the building’s role as a community hall. Based on all the evidence before me, including my observations during my site visit, I therefore agree with the Council’s assessment of the heritage status of the site, and consider that it is appropriate to treat it as an NDHA.

Neither the windows nor roof which have been installed replicate those previously in place on the building. The windows have large double-glazed panels which lack the narrow glazing bars of traditional timber sashes. The opening casements have, as is not uncommon with uPVC windows, much thicker frames than the fixed panels giving the windows a somewhat disjointed appearance. The dark grey finish of the window frames, while reasonably smart and modern in itself, is not commonly seen in the surrounding area. The steel facing to the doors is also somewhat harsh. The roof tiles are much thicker than natural slates, and have an evenness of finish which also appears quite distinct from natural slates (and indeed, in my experience, most artificial slates); although I was not able to conduct a close inspection of the roof during my visit the Council’s description of the materials as “concrete tiles” appeared more accurate than the appellant’s. However, the appeal property is in an area where both uPVC windows are 1 [name] paragraph: 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723 commonplace, including on community buildings such as the nearby [name], while very many roofs in the area have concrete or similar tiles. Overall, the work which has been carried out has not made the building harmfully intrusive or incongruous in its surroundings.

The Framework says (at Paragraph 216) that “the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”. Notwithstanding that there has been some erosion of the historic appearance of the appeal property caused by the choice of materials, its scale and form which contribute to its significance as an NDHA are unaffected; its legibility as a historic community building also still remains. Furthermore, the works have facilitated bringing the building back into viable use after it has been vacant for a very long time, and this also carries some weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

Tying all of this together, I conclude that the character and appearance of the area is not harmed, and the significance of the appeal property as an NDHA is preserved. The development does not conflict with Policies DC1 and CS4 of the 2008 [name] which, among other things, seek to ensure that development is of high quality and integrates sympathetically to its surroundings, that buildings of special historic interest are safeguarded, and that any adaptation or reuse of such buildings protects their special characteristics.

Comments were submitted during the appeal relating to the use of the property as a place of worship – specifically, a mosque. The planning application for the appeal scheme only related to the physical works which have been carried out, and I note in any case that the Council is satisfied that such a use of the building is, in planning terms, unchanged from its established lawful use. The use of the building, and related comments about traffic and parking arising from that use, are not therefore within the scope of my determination of this appeal.

Comments relating to the structural strength of the building, and whether it would be able to accommodate the new roofing materials, address matters dealt with under the Building Regulations; my decision in this appeal does not remove any responsibility to comply with that regulatory regime. None of the other matters raised have had a significant bearing on my overall decision in this appeal.

As the development has already begun, the otherwise standard condition setting a time limit for commencement is not necessary. A condition stating the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty, and to define the permission.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.