Appeal 6004770

The appeal is dismissed.

On 10 December 2025 the Council adopted the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (the Local Plan). This replaced the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, which are cited in the reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice alongside the, at that time, emerging Local Plan. I have considered the proposal against the relevant policies in the current Local Plan.

Full planning permission was granted in 2024 for the change of use of the appeal property from office to residential dwelling, internal alterations and amended external fenestration (reference 24/02625/FUL).

The appellant seeks to vary the approved external materials to allow for the timber frame windows to be replaced with double glazed uPVC windows.

The application form states that the development was started in January 2025. At the time of my site visit, the development had taken place, and I was able to see the replacement windows.

A replacement door to the rear elevation of the appeal property is also shown on the submitted plans. The Council does not object to this replacement door. From the plans before me, I have no reason to disagree with that finding.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the replacement uPVC windows preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached building. It is located within an area with a mixed character resulting from the variety of architectural styles and uses present, including a car park located adjacent to the appeal site. Land levels rise to the front of the appeal property with the car park elevated above the appeal site.

The property is located within the Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area (CA). As such, I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The special interest and significance of the CA result predominantly from the form and massing of the built environment evocative of the history of [name]. I observed during my site visit that the surroundings of the appeal site largely comprise narrow streets with historic buildings which typically feature historic wooden fenestration. Notwithstanding this, there are some examples of more modern buildings and buildings with uPVC fenestration in the vicinity of the appeal site, not all of which are sympathetic to the surrounding area.

The historic fenestration on the front elevation of the appeal property was wooden, consistent with the historic character of the property and the fenestration found across the majority of the CA. By reason of its materiality and detailing, the building contributed positively to the character and appearance of the CA, and its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Although the replacement uPVC windows maintain the fenestration pattern of the historic windows, they feature larger glazing bars and window frames which appear overly bulky and, therefore, unduly prominent. The appellant highlights that, in part, the bulkier frame results from the retention and over-cladding of the timber sub-frame and struts of the first-floor window. Nonetheless, the increased bulk of the window frames is detrimental to the character and appearance of the appeal property. The addition of trickle vents emphasises that the windows are a modern addition to the property, at odds with its historic character.

As a result of the increased bulk and more modern appearance compared to the historic windows, the windows fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. This is irrespective of the appeal property being set back from [name], smaller in scale than nearby buildings and not being listed, locally listed or located within any important local view or sightline or the setting of any listed building.

Although the adjacent car park provides some screening of the front elevation, this screening is limited, especially when parking spaces are not in use. This is particularly the case for the first-floor windows. In this context, and given that [name] is a through-route, the windows are highly visible within this part of the CA.

The appellant asserts that uPVC windows are now materially characteristic of this part of the CA. I observed on site that while there are examples of modern developments and uPVC windows in the surrounding area, the majority of the CA has intact windows. Even if the immediate surroundings of the appeal site differ to some extent from the wider CA, in terms of the character and form of the built environment, as is recognised in the Council’s [site address] and Rusthall Conservation Areas Appraisal (2000), the area, nonetheless, forms part of a designated heritage asset. Indeed, there are examples of historic fenestration in the immediate surroundings of the appeal site, reflective of the wider CA. Moreover, the absence of evidence of enforcement activity in relation to nearby uPVC windows does not demonstrate that uPVC windows of any design are acceptable in this part of the CA.

In this regard, even though the replacement of the historic windows with uPVC was previously approved by the Council, it is evident from the information provided by the appellant that the use of uPVC was considered by the Council not to be inappropriate subject to detailing. For the reasons set out above, the current uPVC windows fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA by reason of their inappropriate detailing, including the addition of trickle vents and bulkier frames.

The appellant asserts that even were replacement windows to be constructed from timber the dividing posts would need to be thicker than those of the historic windows in order achieve window openings compliant with building regulations. There is not, however, any evidence before me to demonstrate that the current uPVC windows are the only way in which compliant window openings could be achieved. As such, even if the first-floor windows were found to be too damaged to be repaired, as approved in 2024, this does not justify the replacement with the current uPVC windows.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

The Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance require the category of harm to be explicitly identified, and the extent of harm within that category to be clearly articulated. Given the scale of the proposed development, I find that the harm to the significance of the CA would be at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm. Nonetheless, the harm is of considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework sets out that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellant asserts that the replacement windows provide benefits in terms of the viability of the conversion of the building, higher thermal performance, removing the need for secondary glazing which necessitates additional mechanical ventilation and requiring less future maintenance. However, the benefits associated with this are primarily private benefits to the appellant. The appellant suggests that the replacement windows also deliver benefits associated with the full restoration of a vacant property, including the improvement of the building fabric, and the creation of an additional family dwelling in the town centre. Nonetheless, such benefits were secured through the full planning permission for the change of use. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that they are dependent on the replacement uPVC windows and could not be achieved through an alternative fenestration solution.

As such, collectively, these public benefits are of limited weight. In this case, mindful of my duties under the Act, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA that I have identified above. Accordingly, they do not provide a clear and convincing justification for the harm to the CA. In this regard, the proposal conflicts with the relevant provisions of Policies EN1, EN4 and H11 of the Local Plan. In summary, these policies seek development which preserves and, where possible, enhances the significance of heritage assets and enhances buildings that contribute positively to the locality and street scene.

I appreciate the frustrations of the appellant regarding the Council’s approach to the application, including perceived inconsistencies in decision-making in the surrounding area. However, this does not have a bearing on my consideration of the appeal, which I have determined on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.