Appeal 6005015

The appeal is dismissed.

I have been provided with copies of policies from the Draft Canterbury District Local Plan to 2045. No draft policies were referred to in the reasons for refusal and their relevance to this proposal has not been explained within the Council’s case. [name] have no evidence as to whether there are outstanding objections to the policies put to me, or how they might relate to the proposal, I can attach no more than limited weight to the emerging policies.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to whether the proposal would i) preserve the setting of the [name] listed 101-108 [site address] and, ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA covers a substantial part of [site address] town centre. Its significance is derived from its historic development as a coastal resort, reflected in the street layout and built form. The appeal site is located within a long vista of 4-5 storey terraces. The extensive terraces and their scale give the sea-facing promenade an urban character. To the rear, the scale of the buildings is reduced, and the streets follow a distinctive grid pattern around the [address]. The coastal setting and pier are also key features of significance.

The Grade II listed terrace, 101-108 [site address] , comprises a group of Regency style stucco clad 4-5 storey buildings, each with a curved frontage. Their significance is derived from their uniformity and cohesiveness as a group, along with their architectural detailing including timber famed 6/6 sash windows, string courses and moulded architraves. The setting of this group is defined by buildings of a similar height in the ribbon of development along [site address] , reflecting the status of these buildings in [site address] ’s role as a Victorian resort. As the appeal site adjoins the listed buildings, it contributes significantly to their setting.

The appeal site itself is a prominent 5 storey Victorian building located on the corner of [site address] and [address]. Its elevations are largely brick, with rendered lower ground floor and projecting bays; its windows are mostly timber framed sashes. The building’s scale and architectural detail contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA. It acts as a bookend to the listed terrace adjacent.

The proposal is for the replacement of the existing windows with uPVC sashes which would be similar in style and profile to the timber sashes. I acknowledge that the depth of the recess and sill would match the existing style and the windows would also exhibit articulation in the detailing. However, the uPVC frames would introduce a new material that has a more artificial texture and uniform finish and would not age in the same way as painted timber framed windows. As all the windows to the front and side elevation would be replaced, cumulatively the effect of the uPVC replacements would be significant and would harmfully erode the contribution of the building to the surrounding CA, and to the setting of the adjacent listed terrace.

There are several examples of uPVC windows along [site address] and in the CA as a whole. Cumulatively, such incremental alterations can harm the CA, and the historic presence of uPVC windows does not justify additional similar windows.

The statutory duty under Section 72 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. For the reasons set out above, the replacement windows would result in less than substantial harm to the character or appearance of the CA. I consider the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (PLBCAA) requires me, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features or special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out 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.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the setting of the [name] listed terrace at 101-108 [site address] . I find that there would be less than substantial harm caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset through development within its setting. The harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum.

The Framework identifies 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.

The proposed windows would offer environmental advantages in the form of heat and sound insulation. They would be durable and the need for maintenance would be reduced.

I consider the benefits described are mostly private with the exception of environmental performance. Given the window installation would be at a relatively small scale, I do not consider the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policies DBE3, DBE6, HE1 and HE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017. Taken together and amongst other things, these policies seek to preserve architectural character and protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment.

I have been referred to examples which have received planning permission on [address] (CA/24/00611) and [address] (CA/24/00558), both within the CA. However, I note these are smaller dwellings in less prominent locations than the appeal site. As such I do not consider them directly comparable. I have also been referred to a site in Whitstable (CA/24/00070) which received planning permission for replacement windows within a CA. As the site is a dwelling in a different town and CA, I do not find the context would be directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

My attention has also been drawn to an allowed appeal for uPVC windows in Canterbury (appeal reference APP/J2210/D/23/3325592). I do not find that this appeal is directly comparable as it concerned a two-storey terraced house in a different CA and it is not described as being within the setting of listed buildings.

I have had due regard to the support for the proposal from the occupiers of the appeal site. The matters raised do not outweigh the proposal’s conflict with the

The less than substantial harm I have identified to the CA and to the setting of the listed buildings at 101-108 [site address] draws the proposal into conflict with the development plan read as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the aforementioned public benefits of the scheme, do not indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.