Appeal 6005003

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hawley Park & Green Conservation Area.

The appeal site is within the Hawley Park & Green Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

Policy NBE8 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 (LP) states that development proposals should conserve or enhance heritage assets and their setting taking account of their significance.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) states that where a development 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.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In considering the significance of the [name] have been directed to the Hawley Park and Green Conservation Area Character Appraisals and [name] (2012) ([name]). This document explains that the CA is based upon the historic mansion of Hawley Park and its grounds together with the early development around Hawley Green and [name]. It is the rural nature of the CA and its traditional character that stands out including the quality of the materials and architectural details of its principal buildings.

The appeal property is within a cul de sac of large modern detached houses developed within the grounds of the historic mansion in the late 1990s. In addition to the [name] listed [address] and separately listed [name] former stables block, Hawley Park is also identified on the Council’s local list of [name] and Gardens. The development therefore sits in a highly sensitive location in heritage terms.

The dwellings in [site address] are traditionally designed with ‘Arts and Crafts’ style detailing and are mostly part rendered and colour washed below steeply pitched slated and plain tiled roofs. The CA Character Appraisal recognises that although the houses do have modern windows and fittings, the quality of the detailing and materials generally have been selected carefully to fit in with the quality of the location. The Council confirm that the site is covered by an Article 4 Direction which removes permitted development rights for certain types of development, including the appeal proposal for replacement of windows and doors.

Whilst of low significance in historic terms, the appeal property is consistent with the character and appearance of other houses in the cul de sac and as a result of the original traditional design of the dwellings and the use of high quality materials throughout, collectively the development makes a modest contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. However, in the absence of further evidence, I cannot agree with the Council that the dwelling, constructed in the late 1990s, is of sufficient heritage interest to be considered a non-designated heritage asset. In these circumstances, I find that paragraph 216 of the Framework is not engaged.

I noted on my site visit that most other houses in [address] uniformly display timber framed windows and doors which are either stained timber or painted white, reflecting their highly sensitive location within the former grounds of the historic mansion. The appellant highlights an exception of a property within [site address] which has a black composite front door slab, but the windows to that property that were visible to me appeared to be painted white timber. Furthermore, I have no information before me to confirm whether planning permission was sought or granted for any changes that may have taken place.

The appeal proposal is for the replacement of the existing stained timber framed windows and timber doors. All windows would be replaced with flush casement, 28mm double glazed units comprising grained white ‘conservation type’ uPVC frames with external astragal bar design. The front door would be replaced with a composite door with white sub-frame and black door slab whilst the side doors would have a white door slab.

I acknowledge that there would be no alteration to aperture size or to the stone cills and the windows would replicate the general design and configuration of the existing windows. Whilst white frames would be consistent with other dwellings in the estate and would similarly blend into the palette of the existing materials, the use of uPVC would not fully replicate the appearance of timber framed windows and doors including matters of finish and fine detailing. Even with a grained finish, compared to wood, uPVC is a material that typically has a heavier appearance and an artificial texture and more uniform finish, when new and when aging, than painted or stained timber.

The dwelling is not widely visible within the estate, other than from the immediately adjacent dwellings and their associated driveways. The garden is also well screened on all sides and views of the dwelling from the grounds of [address] would not be readily obtainable. However, the use of non-traditional materials such as uPVC would be counter to the design ethos of the original dwelling and the surrounding estate. Thus, the proposal would diminish the high quality appearance of the host dwelling and in doing so would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Given its modest scale, in terms of the Framework, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be less than substantial. However, having regard to Paragraph 215 of the Framework, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the appeal scheme, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

I am mindful of the appellant’s description of the existing windows as deteriorating, unsafe and inefficient, causing condensation and rattling. I also observed at my site visit that some were peeling or in need of general repair or replacement. However, whilst uPVC may offer a lower maintenance solution in comparison to wood, this would be a private benefit rather than a public one.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA, which it follows, would not be preserved or enhanced. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy NBE8 of the LP and paragraph 215 of the Framework.

The appellant has referred to an appeal decision1 at [address] (referred to by the appellant as the ‘Fernhurst appeal’) where planning permission was granted for the erection of 158 dwellings within the same conservation area.

The appellant states that this decision confirms the use of modern materials in the CA is not automatically harmful. [name] acknowledge that the Inspector referred to a mix of materials across the scheme, I note that a condition was imposed requiring details of external materials to be subsequently agreed by the Council. I have no further information regarding the range materials that may have been subsequently agreed. In any case, this proposal was for a much larger development on the south-east quadrant of the CA adjacent to the urban edge of Farnborough and is therefore not directly comparable to the more sensitive location of the appeal site. I therefore place little weight on this matter. 1 APP/N1730/W/19/3232716

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would indicate a decision otherwise would be appropriate. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.