Appeal 6006545

The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for the regularisation and replacement windows.

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

At the time of my visit the works described above had already started. Those elements carried out comprised the replacement of the windows identified as EW101 and EW102 on the appellant’s proposed elevations. I was unable to get inside No 111 and was only able to enter some of the rooms serving No 109 during my site visit. However, I am content from the information before me that access inside the property would not have materially changed the decision I have made here.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, namely No [site address] ([name] 1209661) and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The host building comprises a pair of houses from the early to mid-19th century that had previously accommodated a commercial nursery with greenhouse. As noted above, works had started prior to my visit. However, I understand from the details before me, including the building’s listing, that it had been served by a “display window and half-glazed shop door under a single entablature” to the left end of the road facing elevation while to the other end of the elevation No 111 was served by a four panelled door. The windows that remained in place are six-paned sashes. At the time of my visit the shop frontage, including its window and door, one ground-floor window serving No 109, and the door to No 111 had been removed. The doorways had been blocked up while UPVC top-hung windows had replaced the fenestration. I understand that the removal of the door to No 111 is not part of this appeal and occurred some time ago. I find the significance of this building stems in part from its age and appearance from [address], but also the extent to which its historic uses and evolution are legible.

I note that there is some disagreement between the appellant and an interested party as to the age of the existing windows. It is nevertheless agreed that some works were carried out in 2006 to the windows. However, I cannot be certain from the limited information before me as to whether these works were for the replacement of the glazing or included the replacement of the frames too.

Notwithstanding this, it was clear at the time of my visit that those windows which had not been replaced were finely proportioned single-glazed timber sash windows with panes divided into six over six. [name] could only gain access to view one timber window from the inside, I was able to view all of them from the outside and I am content that the retained windows are in a broadly good condition. While some painting and repairs may be needed there was no clear evidence of significant rot which would make repairs unviable. The appellant has provided photos of the remains of the removed windows, but these also do not demonstrate that the windows had been in an irreparable state prior to removal.

The proposed replacements, two of which are already present, are top-hung double glazed windows with no glazing bars and are constructed in UPVC. The opening style, materials and proportions of the glazing are therefore not typical of, or sympathetic to, a property of this age. Moreover, these replacements would result in the complete loss of the potentially historic timber windows. The proposal therefore adversely affects the historic interest and significance of this building.

This harm is further exacerbated by the changes to the shop front which have resulted in the complete loss of the timbers, display window and door. These were important features contributing to the understanding of the building and its interest within the street scene. I recognise that a recess has been retained across this area and that it has been suggested that new elements will be installed to replicate a shop frontage. However, no details of this mock frontage have been provided, and the recess does not currently provide any suggestion as to what was previously there. The small replacement window has been arranged so that it replicates the pattern of fenestration across the rest of the frontage. However, given its position within the recess, and its small size, the window sits at odds with the rest of the fenestration.

Moreover, I do not have access to any substantive information as to what the inside of the shop frontage looked like prior to its replacement. It is not clear whether there was any loss of historic materials within the building a result of the display’s removal. However, at the time of my visit there was no visual evidence of the former display and so the legibility of the building’s former use has been eroded when observed from the inside.

Therefore, in all the proposed removal of the existing windows and shop front have and would result in the loss of interest and significance stemming from the appearance and materiality of the building. Their replacement exacerbates this as a result of the materials, opening style and proportions of the proposed replacements. This is especially so for the shop front.

I recognise that some other properties within the area are served by similar UPVC windows, including on older properties, and that some shop frontages may have been removed. However, I have not been provided with the full details and facts of these examples, and it is not clear whether they bear any more than superficial similarities. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

[name] agree with the appellant that it is unlikely the building will return to a commercial use, this does not justify the removal of the shop front. Although this frontage had ceased to serve a commercial purpose, its purpose in contributing to the understanding and interpretation of the building remains.

I understand that the window and shop frontage that has been removed was broken up and disposed of. The historic interest and the historic materials associated with these features have therefore been lost entirely. This does not however, justify their replacement with UPVC windows.

The appeal site is outside of the Bideford Conservation Area but sits close to a small section where it envelops the grade II listed former almshouses of 82-94 [name]. The proposal is also adjacent to the former Bideford and [name], also [name] listed. Having regard to my statutory duty I am satisfied that the relationship between the appeal site and these heritage assets would result in a neutral effect upon their settings. It is noteworthy that the Council did not raise the impact on the nearby assets as a concern when it refused the planning application.

Against this background, and given the scale of the development, I find that a moderate degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would occur. Although less than substantial, considerable importance and weight should be given to any asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It has been suggested that the proposed works would improve the thermal and acoustic efficiency of the windows providing an airtight barrier against noise, pollution and heat loss, while allowing for ventilation. It has been further submitted that the works would also improve privacy and security of occupiers. I am mindful of the close proximity of the building to the carriageway and that passing vehicles are likely to be detrimental to the living conditions of occupiers at Nos 109 and

Moreover, although I have not been provided with the efficiency values of the current windows and doors, it is likely that the proposed modern materials and construction methods would provide an improvement.

As such, the proposal would result in an improvement to housing stock as well as a small and time-limited economic uplift during the construction works. While these would be public benefits, I am not convinced from the submissions before me that other, less harmful, means could not have been employed to achieve them. Therefore, mindful of this and given the scale of the proposal, I attribute these matters very modest weight. In the circumstances of this case these public benefits do not outweigh the above identified harm to the designated heritage asset.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building and thus fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, Framework and the development plan policies insofar as they are relevant.

I am mindful that the appellant may have been unaware that the building is listed and that they have already purchased the replacement windows. I also understand that it may be disappointing for the appellant to be unable to use these windows. However, these matters do not justify the harm identified above.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.