Appeal 6005436

The appeal is dismissed.

As the works relate to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

‘ [site address] ’ (Ref: 1061100) is a [name] listed building, which was listed on 15 May 1986. There is no reference to UPVC windows on the listing description. The appellants argue that the windows were installed by a previous owner between the time that the building was surveyed for listing and formally added to the list and would therefore not have required consent.

I observed on my site visit that a number of the windows feature the [name] marking ‘BS 5713’. However, this [name] was not withdrawn until 2014 and I do not find that it provides substantive evidence that the works were carried out prior to the building being added to the national list. Furthermore, I observed a BS EN1279 marking on at least one of the windows, which the appellants advise was introduced in 1988, which is after the building was listed.

The Council granted a lawful development certificate (LDC) for the UPVC windows in January 2026 (Ref: 25/2198/FH). This was on the basis that the Council did not have any evidence to contradict that the windows were less than four years old. The Council has been clear that the grant of a LDC does not remove the need to comply with other legal requirements, particularly in respect to listed buildings.

I appreciate that the existing windows have been in place for some time and that they are similar in design to those found on the conservatory, which was granted consent in 1985. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to confirm that the windows were installed prior to listing. The appellants have submitted a listed building consent application and appeal for the windows and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the retention of the windows would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘ [site address] ’, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is a two storey, detached dwelling, which dates back to the late 17th century. The historic core of the building has a timber frame, with two rooms on each floor and a central chimney. It is constructed of red brick, with some burnt headers, which is laid in Flemish bond. The dwelling has a plain tile roof. The dwelling has been extended substantially during the 20th century. The 20th century additions generally incorporate traditional materials that complement the historic core of the building. Tile hanging is present at first floor level on the 20th century additions. [name] observed some historic doors on the building, all of the windows are modern in character and are constructed of UPVC and feature double glazing.

Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the late 17th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards. While both main parties consider that the 20th century additions do not contribute to the special interest of the listed building, I find that they form part of the evolution of the listed building and contribute towards its special interest, but to a lesser extent.

This appeal seeks consent to retain the existing UPVC windows. The evidence before me indicates that the building previously had timber, casement windows, which the appellants argue are likely to have been from the mid-20th century. The historic frames and cills have also been lost. UPVC windows have a materially different aesthetic and typically have a shinier, chunkier and more uniform appearance when compared to timber. The windows also feature non-structural glazing bars, which are sited between the glass panes and fail to look authentic. The use of UPVC fails to capture the finesse and craftsmanship of traditional timber windows and they appear incongruous on this historic building. Double glazing also has a chunkier profile and different reflective qualities when compared with single glazing. Accordingly, I find that the windows fail to preserve the authenticity and integrity of the listed building and cause harm to its special interest.

The majority of the window openings are of 20th century origins. Only five 17th century window openings survive. The appellants and Council have indicated that they would be happy to reinstate timber windows on the historic core and retain the UPVC windows on the 20th century part of the building. However, such a scheme is not before me. Nevertheless, the building as a whole is listed and I find the 20th century additions make a small contribution towards its special interest. The use of UPVC harmfully clashes with the more traditional building materials found on the exterior of the listed building. I find that the retention of the UPVC windows, even on the later additions, would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building.

I appreciate that there are limited views of the appeal property from the public realm due to its set back position from the highway and mature boundary vegetation. Nevertheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 advises that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have clear and convincing justification. Given the nature and extent of the appeal scheme, I find that the harm to the significance of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight.

Where a scheme leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The appeal scheme has resulted in investment into the property, which has a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. I appreciate that double glazing helps to improve the thermal efficiency of the property and contributes to the government’s goal of achieving net zero. However, any benefits that would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal. There is no clear and convincing justification before me that this is the only solution for achieving the same environmental benefits.

The appellants argue that the windows are embedded into the building and that their removal would damage the surrounding fabric. However, there is no compelling evidence before me why the windows could not be sensitively removed by an appropriately qualified and/or experienced specialist, while minimising the impact on the surrounding fabric. UPVC windows typically have a limited lifespan. The appellants advise that some of the windows are in a poor state of repair and are no longer fit for purpose. It is therefore likely that they will need replacing in the future. Accordingly, I give this argument limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. There is also no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the use of the building would cease in the absence of the appeal scheme. As a result, I do not find the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building.

Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that has been caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme fails to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The appeal scheme conflicts with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone and Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted September 2020. These policies among other things require that alterations should reflect the materials and detailing of the original building.

The Parish Council has stated that some of the windows were installed prior to listing. However, it is unclear from their limited submission, whether this is based on their own knowledge or whether they are reiterating what has been said in the appellants’ submission. Accordingly, I give the Parish Council’s comments limited weight in my decision. The Parish Council’s support for the appeal scheme does not alter my findings set out above.

The appellants state that the Council and Historic England have been aware of the UPVC windows for some time. The appellants advise that they purchased the appeal property based on written assurance from the local authority that enforcement action would not be pursued in respect to the windows. [name] appreciate the frustration of the appellants, the issue of enforcement action is a matter for the local authority.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.