Appeal 6005491

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I observed that the windows at the first and second floor on the front elevation of the building have been replaced and broadly align with the details shown on plan ref. 481-03. Considering the appellant’s evidence, I have determined this appeal on the basis that the appellant wishes for the windows that have been installed to be retained.

The Council has confirmed that the appeal building is not a listed building and that any reference to it as such in the decision notice and officer report was in error. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The appeal building is within the Fakenham Conservation Area (the CA). In accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) I have been mindful of my statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

After the planning application was determined, the Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 (the Local Plan), which has replaced the [name] (2008) (the [name]) and now forms part of the development plan. It follows that the policies from the [name] referenced in the Council’s decision notice are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, the decision notice and officer report refer to the emerging policies, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these as part of the appeal. I have therefore determined this appeal against the Local Plan.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Fakenham Conservation Area.

The appeal building is a three-storey mid-terraced building with decorative quoin dressings that has been painted. The building has a shop front and relatively modern fascia signage relating to the commercial unit at ground level. Above this are six window openings. The building is located on [address], which leads down to the [address]. The CA includes the main historic core of the town centred around its marketplace. It includes a variety of traditional buildings, many Georgian, particularly in and around the marketplace, with their scale and quality reflecting historical wealth generated through agricultural trade and the local market.

The Fakenham CA Character Appraisal and Management Plan (2011) (the [name]) describes [address] as having a very pleasing and generally homogenous character. It states that the majority of the houses along the street are three storeys with shops at ground floor, which are of simple Georgian character and of a good overall standard. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA derives from the architecture and layout of the buildings within it, their relationship with the [address] and their historical association with the agricultural economy.

The appeal building is prominent in views when travelling along [address]. The traditional materials and architectural detailing of the appeal building above ground floor are well preserved and attractive in the street scene. As a traditional building that is part of the historic commercial core of Fakenham, it therefore makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance.

The evidence indicates that prior to the development taking place, the windows at first and second floor within the building were timber, two over two, vertical sliding sashes with narrow glazing bars and curved headers. The window frames now in situ have the same two over two proportions with a curved top frame but are of a white uPVC material with fixed top panes, middle hung casements below and visible trickle vents.

Despite having been designed to emulate the style and colour of the previous windows, the replacement windows have an inauthentic, uniform sheen, wider and bulkier frame profiles and obvious trickle vents. As a result, they are significantly different in appearance from the traditional style, slender proportions and more refined detailing of the timber sash windows which they have replaced. These differences are noticeable in the street scene, despite the elevated position of the windows. The uPVC windows also directly contrast with the more traditional and pleasant detailing of the appeal building, detracting from its historic character and appearance and undermining the contribution the appeal building makes to the significance of the CA.

I note the appeal building has a shopfront at street level. However, save for the fascia signage, the shopfront has a relatively traditional, painted timber appearance which is similar to others in the vicinity and preserves the appearance of the appeal building and street scene. Accordingly, it is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. The appellant has also provided images of other buildings featuring uPVC windows. However, I have very limited information before me relating to whether they benefit from express or deemed planning permission or what they have replaced. I therefore cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to this appeal scheme. Nevertheless, during my site visit I observed that several buildings along this street contained timber windows, which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA, and that uPVC did not appear to be the predominant window material. Therefore, these examples cited by the appellant do not lend any particular support to the appeal scheme, which I have considered on its own merits.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme results in harm to the character and appearance of the CA and therefore fails to preserve or enhance its significance. Given the nature and extent of development in relation to the wider CA, the harm would be localised and less than substantial, at the lower end of the scale in this case, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. At paragraph 215, the Framework goes on to advise that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant has referred to the poor condition of the previous windows and the ongoing maintenance costs and road closures that would be required if the windows have to be maintained or replaced. The appellant also refers to the improved fire escape and ventilation provided by the new windows for occupiers of the first and second floors. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that the timber windows were deficient or inappropriate for the use of the building. Any benefits associated with reduced maintenance costs would be private benefits and even if these works necessitated a road closure, this would likely be for a limited and finite period. I acknowledge that the uPVC windows could improve the energy efficiency of the building; however, I have no substantive evidence before me that there would not be a less harmful way of securing the same benefits.

Given the above and in the absence of any defined substantiated public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, resulting in harm to its significance. This fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the historic environment protection policies of the Framework and conflicts with the aims of policies EN7 and EN8 of the Local Plan. Amongst other things, these policies collectively seek high quality developments that reflect the distinctive character of the area and conserve, and where possible enhance, designated heritage assets and the historic environment.

The appellant refers to agreement having been sought from the Fakenham Town Council (FTC) for the replacement windows. However, FTC are not the Local Planning Authority. Therefore, any advice or agreement that may have been given by FTC was informal and not binding. Moreover, the fact that FTC did not object to the application does not alter my conclusions above. Nor does the condition of [address] opposite the appeal site, which is understood to have been in a poor state of repair for some time, given the appeal scheme must be considered on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR