Appeal 6003471

The appeal is dismissed.

According to the Application Form, the existing timber windows were removed and replaced with the current uPVC windows in 2024. I also witnessed the installed windows that match the elevation plans on my site visit. As such the development is retrospective and I shall make my decision on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the existing building (a non- Designated Heritage Asset) (NDHA) and the surrounding locality, with special attention as to whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in the determination of a planning application.

With regards to undertaking alterations, relevant policies of the Coventry Local Plan (LP) includes Policy DE1 which sets a number of design principles, where applications are expected to preserve or enhance the character and setting of the historic built landscape, seek high quality design and attention to detail, consider local distinctiveness, and respond to climate change, amongst others. Additionally, LP Policy HE2 is related to the historic environment, particularly NHDA’s and CA’s and seeks that development should conserve and where possible, enhance the significance of a heritage asset, and ensuring that proposals complement their Appeal Decision: 6003471 historic environment through their form, scale, design and materials, amongst others.

Whilst a [name] has not been submitted with the application, from my initial views of the CA including responses from both parties; the significance of the CA appears to be related to the Victorian and Edwardian expansion of Coventry, which saw smaller pockets of more affluent areas, materials and designs being utilised. Given the CA is towards the western area of Coventry where typically more affluent areas compared with more industrial east-end areas which is a generally accepted situation in town planning. The older dwellings in this Victorian expansion of the town are typically constructed in brick, and have timber window frames, with timber doors, decorative brickwork, stone fenestration surrounds and slate rooves and large chimney stacks. In this particular location along [address], a prominent Synagogue is located and directly opposite the synagogue is [address], which the appeal site forms part of.

I disagree with the Appellant’s appraisal of the terrace in their Statement of Case (SoC) in that they believe this to be ‘modest workers housing.’ [address] is very prominent, not just in scale at 3 storeys tall, but in its decoration with a Victorian ‘gothic’ frontage, large chimney stacks with gabled dormers projecting through the eaves, with terracotta motifs of good quality across the façade with stone fenestration surrounds. It would appear that the prominence is also directly attributable to its positioning overlooking the Synagogue, which is typical in these types of locations where a place of worship is present. The status of the terrace is appreciable when compared to side streets such as [address] or [address], where dwellings are predominantly two storeys tall with very minimal decoration, scale or prominence within the street compared to that of [address].

Whilst there are some examples of unsympathetic alterations and materials such as uPVC which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA; the continued use of traditional and authentic materials, designs and their relationship to the historic form and function of buildings is also a key component of the significance of the CA.

Whilst it is not clear in the appeal documents as to why the Council consider the building as a Locally Listed Building, assessing this against the Historic England Guide1, the appeal building along with the terrace is a positive group of historic buildings which assists in demonstrating the historic origins and associated Victorian expansion of Coventry and the way surrounding streets were developed. It’s local use of vernacular is particularly important for understanding the use of traditional materials and reinforcing local character, and the distinctiveness of the area. The appeal building still maintains a positive presence to the street scene alongside the other historic buildings such as the Synagogue found along [address]. As such I agree that it should be considered a non-designated heritage asset which is considered according to Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The windows that have been installed are uPVC double glazed, top hung casements, that have ‘stuck-on’ false glazing bars with 6/6 windows to ground and first floor, a smaller 4/4 window on first floor and an 8/8 window on the second floor. 1 Historic England, ‘Local Heritage Listing: Identifying and Conserving Local Heritage,’ 2021 Appeal Decision: 6003471 On my site visit I found that the windows are very thick in profile with a large spacer between the windows panes visible. Additionally, when looking at the authenticity of these windows, the window design does not contain window horns which would normally be expected of a Victorian/Edwardian window which has larger lights. The installation of multi-paned lights with false glazing bars has quasi-Georgian connotations in their design with smaller lights than would be expected on a Victorian/[address] such as this. Given other examples of timber windows along the terrace, it would appear that the main windows on the terrace would have historically been 2/2 timber sash windows which are more in-keeping with the industrial revolution where larger panes of glass were being manufactured during Victorian times.

Historic England advises in their guidance2 that replacement uPVC windows “pose one of the greatest threats to the heritage value of historic areas, particularly in towns and villages. Despite attempts at improving the design of these windows they are instantly recognisable because they cannot match the sections and proportions of historic joinery.”

Whilst the application form states that the windows that were removed were timber, I am unclear whether these windows were original. However, in replacing windows, it is important to understand and seek to preserve or enhance significance of the building and the CA as per LP Policy HE2. This can be done by ensuring all intangible and tangible heritage values are first understood, such as Evidential, Communal, Aesthetic and [name]. When considering windows this could relate to openings, thickness and sheen of glazing, appropriate materials, design and constructional techniques which are authentic and characteristic of the period when the building was constructed. I accept comments from the Appellant that the design of uPVC replacements has become more sophisticated in recent years, however I do not agree that the use of uPVC replacements would be identical, replicate, or are as authentic as timber windows, particularly these examples that have been installed.

As shown in the elevation plans that accompany the appeal, and what was seen on the site visit, the frames and configuration of glazing are significantly thicker, do not contain the sliding sash opening, with the thicker units and large gap between glazing presenting a more reflective appearance against the more matt and uneven finish and appearance of a traditionally glazed window. The uPVC windows also maintains a perfect uniformed and manufactured finish that lacks the finesse and craftsmanship of a traditionally constructed timber window which ages over time. As such, it is readily apparent that the windows are modern uPVC replacements, and in this case looks particularly incongruous as the design of the windows attempts to mimic Georgian rather than Victorian designs.

Consequently, I disagree that the proposed windows would maintain the appearance of the house or have a ‘neutral effect’ upon the existing building. The proposed windows which are of a poor quality design and configuration, are of uPVC and have glazing bars that are inauthentic and would materially diminish the architectural authenticity of the dwelling and the greater terrace and would have an incongruous and harmful effect on the appearance of the CA. Despite this, the appropriateness of a window is not solely related to the visual appearance, but the 2 Historic England (September 2017): ‘[name]: [name], Repair and Upgrading’ Appeal Decision: 6003471 authenticity of building materials and local vernacular and how this relates to the heritage values of this building as well as the broader significance of the CA.

I agree with the Appellant that there is a need for environmental efficiency and tackling elements that contribute to climate change, sustainability and the reduction of fossil fuels which is also a key design principle of LP Policy DE1. However, I have not been presented with substantive evidence to suggest that the proposed uPVC windows would significantly outperform well installed and maintained slimline double glazed timber windows which would also be thermally efficient and meet current building, environmental, security and fire safety regulations. Additionally, uPVC windows cannot be recycled once they have reached their short life expectancy, and are environmentally quite poor and inferior to a timber window which can be repaired, spliced, recycled and reused.

I can also appreciate comments made by the Appellant that there is evidence within the locality and within the terrace of historic buildings with uPVC windows. I have not been given details as to why these buildings contain the use of uPVC, which may have also been installed without consent, or potentially before designation of the CA. In any event, the presence of detrimental elements such as uPVC windows elsewhere in the street is not a strong point in favour of the appeal scheme. It is clear that in relation to this particular CA that in these circumstances the use of timber is a key component of its significance and how the building is experienced within the CA.

In conclusion of this matter it is clear to me that the proposal would unacceptably harm the appearance of the appeal building (a NDHA) and the character and appearance of the locality, thus failing to preserve the character and appearance of the wider CA and the duty under s72 of the PLBCA. The proposed scheme would therefore conflict with Paragraphs 212 and 216 of the Framework, [name] DE1 and HE2 as described previously. There is also harm caused by development that would affect the significance of the NDHA whereby this harm is also considered as per Paragraph 216 of the Framework.

Beginning with the assessment of the CA, although serious, the harm to the CA would be ‘less than substantial,’ within the meaning of the term in paragraph 215 of the Framework. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that, where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I note discussion in the [name] that they believe harm to be at a “lower end” level applied to the assessment of Paragraph

It is noted that this spectrum classification of less than substantial harm is unnecessary and goes beyond the remit of the Framework which is also addressed through caselaw3, hence these spectrum levels are not appropriate to give weight to in my decision.

The Appellant has suggested that the public benefits of the scheme would be that the proposed uPVC windows would have environmental benefits such as reduction in drafts, reducing energy consumption, improved living conditions, improved thermal performance and reduction in heating emissions. Additionally, the installation of windows would have had economic benefits in the short term 3 Shimbles, R (on the application of) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council EWHC 195 (Admin) Appeal Decision: 6003471 employment of labourers. However, these benefits are not unique to this particular scheme or to uPVC windows, and as discussed, there may be other, more acceptable ways in which these same public benefits could be achieved which are more appropriate to the policies of the development plan.

I therefore find that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm I have identified. The scheme therefore conflicts with the Framework, which directs, at paragraph 212, ‘that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation ... irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to their significance.’

Turning to the assessment under Paragraph 216 of the Framework, this seeks that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Given the importance of local materials and vernacular which contributes to the significance of this NDHA, the harm caused by the installation of the proposed windows causes further detriment to the significance of this building which compounds the harm already caused towards the CA.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.