Appeal 6004956

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice as this more accurately describes the appeal development than that provided on the application form. The development subject of this appeal was in place at the time of my visit and reflected the plans that are before me. For clarity, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Toxteth Park and Avenues Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is located in the CA which includes Toxteth Park Cemetery and a dense residential area which comprises of terraced rows and semi-detached properties. The buildings are typically two or three stories, are set a short distance back from the highway on regular building lines and contain features such as bay windows and regular window proportions which contributes to the significance of the CA.

The appeal property was one half of a semi-detached pair where the adjoining half has been removed and replaced with a modern development. Whilst the symmetry and balance with the adjoining building has been lost, the appeal property in terms of its siting, overall scale, and other features still contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA.

The details of the previous windows and front door have not been provided. Nonetheless, the replacement windows that are subject of this appeal are not of a traditional design, with them being formed of uPVC in a casement style. Whilst reference has been made to them being slimline and configured to mimic the vertical emphasis of sash windows, the uPVC material and thicker frames has resulted in a bulky appearance that contrasted starkly with the slender frames of traditional timber sashes on nearby properties.

The windows and front door have been installed within existing openings, and no structural alterations have been carried out. As such, the overall massing and form of the building remains unaltered, and the established vertical rhythm and spacing of the fenestration along the street remain unchanged. However, the windows and front door have been set almost flush with the elevation. This detailing is uncharacteristic of properties of this age within the CA and has resulted in harm to the building’s architectural composition.

The uPVC windows are described as having a matte woodgrain-effect; however, from my observations, they exhibit an overly smooth finish that lacks the texture typically associated with painted timber. Although there was some variation in the colour and type of windows in the area, it was evident at the time of my visit that white timber window frames predominated around the appeal site, with the black colour appearing intrusive.

The front door, whilst having a four-panel format and semi-circular light, also has a shiny, flatter appearance that fails to reflect the detailing and traditional appearance of a timber door.

The appeal development includes a number of rooflights on the front and rear roofslopes. Although one of the front rooflights is of a large size and positioned close to the ridge, it only occupies a limited part of the overall roof plane and does not project noticeably above the roof surface. As such, I do not consider the rooflights unduly disrupt the roofscape.

Nevertheless, the proposal fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), I assess the harm to be less than substantial, with it being on the lower end of the scale of less than substantial. Even so, and taking into account the works subject of this appeal being reversible, great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellant has referenced the improved thermal efficiency that is provided by the proposal and the reduced reliance on artificial lighting by provision of increased natural daylight. These benefits are, however, limited by the scale of the proposal.

Enhanced security and durability have been referenced, but there is limited further information provided and I consider that these benefits are largely private. There is also no substantive evidence that the proposal is necessary to support the long-term viable and sustainable residential occupation of the property.

Taking the stated benefits in connection with the appeal scheme together, I am not persuaded there are public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the great weight to the assets' conservation and considerable importance and weight to the less than substantial harm identified to their significance. Accordingly, within the context of my duties under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I conclude that the proposal fails to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and the CA. Hence, it conflicts with Policies HD1, H7, H8, UD1 and UD7 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033, and the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, to conserve the significance of the heritage assets and to ensure that the character of the existing building is considered.

The type of windows or door that were present prior to the installation of those subject of this appeal is not known, including whether they were original or beyond reasonable repair. This does not however outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The decision notice references an insufficient Heritage statement, but I have been able to assess, based on the submitted evidence and my observations, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the CA.

The appeal decision relating to 16 Gresford Avenue1 has been cited. While there are some similarities with the current proposal, with both sites being located in the same CA, there are also clear differences, as the referenced case concerned a terraced property and included a change to roofing materials. I can confirm that I have dealt with this appeal on its own merits.

Reference has been made to administrative matters, including further information not being requested prior to a decision being issued by the Council and that the works subject of this appeal were carried out by a previous owner. These matters do not have a bearing on the main issue in this appeal.

There is no harmful overlooking arising from the development as the appeal development, other than the rooflights, involves replacement windows and a door in existing openings. For this same reason, there is no harmful noise or disturbance arising to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The access arrangements also remain unchanged. These are however neutral matters and not matters which weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.

I conclude that the proposal does not accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with this. The appeal is dismissed.