Appeal 6005986

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the Willet Estate Conservation Area (WECA).

The WECA is a residential conservation area that is primarily characterised by individual rows of uniformly designed detached, semi-detached and terraced houses dating from the late [postcode] . The variety in the style, materials and detailing of the individual rows of houses adds to the visual interest of individual streets and the conservation area as a whole. These features contribute to the character, appearance and significance of the WECA.

Within and on the edge of the WECA there are a diverse range of modern flats developments that include UPVC/aluminium double-glazed windows. Typically, the windows are an integral part of the design of the buildings and so respect them. Some of the modern buildings have been designed to reflect and respect the character and appearance of the nearby older buildings and thus have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the WECA. Notwithstanding this, some of the buildings fail to respect the conservation area and as a result have detracted from its character, appearance and significance.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act) requires that when assessing proposals for new development within a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance.

The appeal property is located within a narrow part of the WECA which specifically includes the dwellings along the northern side of [address]. The appeal building occupies a prominent position within the street scene, close to the junction of [address], [address] and [address]. It comprises one of a pair of six symmetrically designed two storey semi-detached houses with projecting front gables and first floor balconies over wide open fronted porches on either side of the gables. The dwellings were designed with large ornate sash windows, first floor doors and timber railings around their balconies. They are set back from the street scene behind modest sized front gardens that are enclosed by low brick and flint walls with tall red brick pillars. These features make/made a strong contribution to the attractive and individual character of the row of dwellings and the character, appearance and significance of the WECA.

Collectively paragraphs 203, 205, 206 and 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework), state that in determining applications local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. When considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to its conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential arm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm to its significance. Any harm to a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The environmental objective of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 8 of the Framework, seeks to protect and enhance the built and historic environment. This includes mitigating and adapting to climate change and using natural resources prudently.

Consistent with this policy CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Council’s Development Plan Part 1 (CP1) and policy DM26 of the Brighton and Hove City Council’s Development Plan Part 2 (CP2) seek to ensure that new developments conserve and enhance designated heritage assets and their setting. Where proposals are promoted for their contribution to mitigating climate change any harm that would be caused to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting will be weighed against such benefits. Development proposals in conservation areas should preserve or enhance the distinctive character and appearance of the area, taking full account of associated appraisals. This includes the use of materials and finishes that respect the area.

Amongst other things CP2 Policies 18 & 21 seek to ensure that proposals make a positive contribution to a sense of place and the visual quality of the environment. Building materials and architectural detailing are a key design aspect and alterations should use materials that complement the parent building. Section F of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 09 – [name] (SPD9), advises that windows are a crucial element of historic streetscapes, with timber double hung vertical sliding sash being the most common type of window in Hove. Within conservation areas replacement windows must closely match the existing and on street elevations must be matched.

The front elevation of the middle pair of dwellings appears largely unaltered and shows the original detailing of the fenestration. Conversely the outer pairs of semi-detached properties have an assortment of UPVC replacement fenestration. This includes the appeal property where the proposed replacement fenestration has been installed. Individually and collectively the replacement fenestration fails to replicate the design of the original openings. The design and appearance of the fenestration within the group of houses varies and the UPVC frames have a flat and glossy quality that is at odds with the timber frames of the centrally positioned houses. This detracts from the quality and weakens the symmetry of the individual pairs of houses. As a consequence, the proposed fenestration has failed to preserve the character and appearance of the WECA and has harmed its significance. Whilst this harm is modest and thus less that significant it nonetheless needs to be weighed against the public benefits arising from the proposal.

I fully appreciate that the appellant was unaware of the fact that the replacement windows required planning permission. The former timber windows and doors were drafty, not in a good state of repair and not secure. Also, that low maintenance windows can protect properties from harsh coastal elements, thus reducing the need for repairs and re-painting.

Together CP1 Policies SS1 and CP8 promote sustainable buildings, including improvements to existing housing to reduce carbon emissions and heat loss. Paragraph 135 f) of the Framework seeks to ensure that developments promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The reduction in carbon emissions and the promotion of health and well-being are public benefits of considerable weight. Also, the long-term maintenance of the building would benefit the preservation of the WECA. However, little evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the original fenestration was beyond repair, or that more sensitive and secure timber replacements with double glazing could not be used or reasonably maintained. As stated by the appellant the council grated planning permission for double glazed replacement windows at [address]. Similarly, it has not been demonstrated that UPVC fenestration and railings would be more environmentally sustainable than timber replacements, having regard to their materials, method of production, maintenance and likely lifespan. As such I can only give limited weight to these factors.

For these reasons I find that the harm that has been caused by the proposal to the significance of the WECA clearly outweighs the above public benefits. This harm is not something that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions. I have also taken into account the personal financial and maintenance benefits for the appellant in retaining the proposed fenestration. However, this fails to outweigh the great weight that needs to be given to the conservation of the WECA.

I conclude that the proposal fails to reserve the character or appearance of the WECA and that the harm to the significance of the WECA is not outweighed by any public benefits. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with CP1 Policies DM18, DM21 & DM26, CP2 Policy CP15 and the guidance set out in SPD9.