Appeal 6003668

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The appeal relates to six replacement windows which have already been installed on the ground floor of the listed building. Therefore, the focus of this appeal is on these replacement windows.

The appellant states that window 6 is excluded from the appeal. However, window 6 is clearly shown on the submitted plans. The appellant has not submitted any revised plans to exclude window 6. I have therefore included the works to window 6 in my assessment of this appeal. As such, my approach would not prejudice any parties involved.

The main issue is whether the works would preserve a [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The appeal site relates to a [name] listed1 building dating from the late 18th century. The two-storey detached cottage has a vernacular form, constructed mainly from flint and brick set under a thatched roof with attic space.

The principal elevation has a boarded door beneath a thatched canopy with timber-framed windows and delicate structural glazing bars. 1 [name]: 1156432, [name]: [address].

Pertinent to the appeal, the building comprises a modern two-storey extension dating from the 1980s, which is broadly in keeping with the style of the host dwelling. Although the extension and its windows are a later addition to the cottage, it was evident during my site visit that the form and some styling features of the extension’s upper floor windows had been influenced by the historic pattern of those found on the historic core of the building. They are mainly single glazed, constructed from wood with slender profiles and structural glazing bars. As such, they are important features of the building which positively contribute to its character, appearance and thus its heritage merit.

Given the above, I find the special interest and significance of this heritage asset is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. These are drawn from its illustration of a late 18th century flint and brick cottage. Its age, historic fabric, architectural form and design, including its fenestration, all make important contributions to its special interest and significance.

The proposal relates to six replacement windows that have already been installed. Four ground-floor windows in the building’s modern extension have been replaced with uPVC windows. In addition, a small single-pane fixed casement within a single-storey outshot has been replaced with a uPVC window, as has a traditional sash window on the north-east gable within the historic core of the building.

Although it is unclear whether the removed windows were single or double-glazed, I observed that existing single glazed, timber-framed windows remain within the historic core of the listed building and on the upper floor of the modern extension. These windows are traditionally detailed, with slim painted timber frames and narrow structural glazing bars set within the frames. Collectively, these windows are well suited to the age, materials and craftmanship of the listed building.

In contrast, due to their chunky frames and visible plastic trim lines, the replacement windows fail to replicate the finesse of historic joinery and stand out as poor imitations. The applied glazing bars do not reflect the finer proportions of traditional casement windows, where glazing bars are structural and integral to the window itself. I observed that the replacement windows differ markedly from the profiles and components of the building’s existing timber-framed windows, which have slender frames, narrow structural glazing bars and single glazing. As a result, the replacement windows alter the character of the building and diminish its historical merit.

Even with a wood-grain finish, the uPVC windows do not successfully replicate the authentic appearance or character of traditional timber-framed windows. The repetitive grain pattern lacks the natural variation, depth and softness characteristic of painted timber joinery. Furthermore, the plastic-like finish of uPVC contrasts sharply with the flint and brick walls, disrupting the building’s architectural harmony.

The replacement windows also incorporate trickle vents and a protruding head drip feature. These features have a conspicuously modern and ungainly appearance and fail to reflect the simplicity of traditional wooden window frames.

Consequently, the replacement windows appear overtly modern and incongruous. They detract from the well-preserved historic character and appearance of the building, thereby undermining its architectural integrity.

The appellant suggests that the listing description does not identify the extension or its fenestration as elements of special architectural or historic interest. However, listings are primarily for identification purposes and do not provide an exhaustive or complete description of the building’s special interest. Whilst the extension is a later addition to the cottage, it still forms part of the listed building.

The appellant states that features such as storm-proof design, glazing thickness and modern detailing were already present within the extension prior to the appellant's works. However, there is insufficient evidence of this before me.

The appellant implies that the windows that were replaced had deteriorated to the point of being beyond practical repair. Even if the windows were beyond repair, the replacement windows are unsuitable for the reasons given.

The appellant indicates that some of the windows were replaced on a like-for-like basis. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the windows previously in place were constructed from uPVC. Indeed, the appellant’s design and access statement states that “the works involved the removal and destruction of six original timber casement windows.” As such, it has not been demonstrated that the windows were replaced like-for-like.

Drawing the above together, I find that the replacement windows do not preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In doing so, they harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.

With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the extent and fairly localised nature of the proposal, I find that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset assessed above would be ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. To my mind, this is towards the middle of the range of the less than substantial harm. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

In this case, economic benefits would have been delivered through the manufacture and installation phase of the replacement windows along with the general investment into the property. Additionally, social benefits would be generated through the improvements to the local housing stock, which would be through the avoidance of damp and mould. There would also be enhanced thermal efficiency and security of the building. These would represent benefits to the public at large that carry weight in favour of the appeal.

Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that similar public benefits could not be achieved by a proposal that would be less harmful to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Additionally, no compelling evidence is before me which confirms that the property would not be usable or viable as a dwelling or that its future would be at risk if the appeal was to fail. In these respects, the identified harm to the significance of the listed building has not been clearly and convincingly justified as required by paragraph 213 of the Framework.

On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the minor public benefits arising from the works.

I conclude that the replacement windows do not preserve the listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. They therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. They also conflict with Policy E9 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD 2011-2029 (adopted 2016). This policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development and works affecting a heritage asset would make a positive contribution to sustaining or enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, taking into account its character, appearance and setting.

The appellant’s statement of appeal refers to an independent survey undertaken in 2013, which recorded that windows within the building were of modern storm-proof design and that alterations to window openings had occurred historically. However, I have determined this appeal on its own merit based on the evidence before me and my own observations on site.

The appellant suggests that the replacement windows provide a low-maintenance solution. Nevertheless, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence in this regard.

For the reasons given above, and considering all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.