Appeal 6004463

The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for removal of existing single glazed steel framed Crittall windows with double glazed slim aluminium framed windows in existing mullioned window openings.

The appeal was submitted on the basis of the failure of the Council to determine the application within the prescribed timescale. The Council has submitted an appeal statement which confirms that having considered the proposal it has no objection. Nevertheless, as the appeal concerns a [name] listed building and is in a conservation area, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The proposal relates to the replacement of the ground floor drawing room windows on the south and east wall, and the first floor bedroom window on the south wall.

The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “Uplands, 25, [address] and [site address] , [site address] , including railings adjoining north east” (Ref: 1268453) (the LB), or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Great Malvern Conservation Area (the CA).

The CA covers the historic spa town set against the backdrop of the [name]. It comprises the historic core around the Abbey, its areas with Regency origins and its Victorian housing set within large plots. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, its significance is primarily associated with its concentration of high quality individual buildings that are characteristic of a key phase in the historic development of the spa town.

The LB dates from 1854 and comprises two dwellings. The appeal relates to one of these, the former stable and coach house, known as [site address] , to the rear of [address]. It is constructed of Malvern stone and has a plain tile roof. Its windows predominantly have stone mullion and transom frames, with metal casements that date from the 1970s. Therefore, the significance of the LB insofar as it relates to this appeal primarily derives from its historic interest as a former stable and coach house associated with [address], and its architectural interest as an attractive, mid 19th century stone building. Its stone framed windows are a characteristic feature that add to an appreciation of its historic interest.

It is not a matter in dispute between the main parties that the Crittall style windows that the appellant seeks to replace are not historic. Whilst unobtrusive, I find that they do not contribute to the special architectural or historic interest of the LB. As such, their replacement with a similar aluminium framed, double glazed window would be acceptable in principle, without harm to the special architectural or historic interest of the LB, or to the character and appearance of the CA from which the proposed windows would be largely hidden.

I note that the Council considered that the proposed replacement windows would comprise a quality product and would respect the thin sections that are present in the existing windows. This is understood to be based on a description of the proposed window units as set out in the Alitherm Heritage Windows quote and the appellant’s intention to replicate the existing windows as closely as possible. I also recognise the challenges of the existing windows which are prone to condensation and the appellant’s desire to improve thermal efficiency and maintain the historic fabric of the building.

However, no drawings have been provided of the proposed replacement windows. It is important that accurate drawings are provided to avoid doubt about what is proposed, and in the event of a scheme being allowed, about what is permitted. In the absence of such details, and whilst I find that the principle of replacing the windows would be acceptable, I am unfortunately unable to properly assess whether the detailed design of the replacement windows would preserve the [name] listed building and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Consequently, I cannot reasonably determine whether the proposal would meet the requirements of sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Act. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, it falls that the appeal should be dismissed and listed building consent refused.