Appeal 6007201

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this description objectively describes the components requiring planning approval.

According to the Application Form, the existing timber windows were removed and replaced with the current uPVC windows in 2025. I also witnessed the installed windows that match the submitted plans on my site visit. As such the development is retrospective and I shall make my decision on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the existing building and the surrounding locality, with special attention as to whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Brompton Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in the determination of a planning application.

With regards to undertaking alterations, relevant policies of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (LP) includes Policy DE1 which sets a number of design principles, where applications are expected to reflect the local environment and create a sense of place with distinctive character, respond to the local context in terms of scale, form, height, materials, fenestration, reducing carbon emissions, amongst others. Additionally, LP Policy DE5 is related to the historic environment, Appeal Decision: 6007201 and seeks that development should conserve and where possible, enhance the significance of a heritage asset, and ensuring that proposals conserve elements which contribute to significance, amongst others. The policies are also supported by the [name] (RDG) which has specific guidance around replacement windows which should reflect the context of the area and the host property.

Whilst a [name] has not been submitted with the application, from my initial views of the CA including responses from both parties; the significance of the CA appears to be related to the historic core and associated development of the village which appears to have medieval origins from the site of the Castle, fourteenth century church of all Saints and [address]. The historic core of the Village appears to have been associated with the [address], [address], Hungate and [address]. Much of the development along the main streets comprises of functionally designed terraced dwellings which appear to have been constructed between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries. Dwellings typically have no setback from the street and many of which are constructed in local vernacular with coursed limestone, with authenticity gained from red pantile roof tiles with large chimney stacks, timber multi-paned casement windows, and timber doors. [name] there is also evidence of Yorkshire sliding sash windows that open horizontally which is a local characteristic of Yorkshire dwellings. Whilst there is limited visual gaps in between dwellings, there is vegetation within the CA with the castle ruins and views to rear gardens along [address], as well as the small open square between the Village Hall and the School adding positive aspects to the CA. The roads are rather narrow with slow moving vehicles and a feeling of tranquillity. These are some of the positive aspects of the CA that contribute to the significance of the CA.

Whilst there have been some alterations and extensions undertaken to the CA, many are sympathetic to the significance of the CA. Unfortunately, there have been inauthentic elements introduced within the CA such as UPVC windows and doors, and strap pointing which detracts from the authenticity and significance of the CA. Hence why there have been moves by the Council to seek to improve the negative elements via the placement of an Article 4 direction over parts of the village to seek to minimise and reverse harm to the significance of the CA.

The appeal site comprises of a two storey mid-terraced dwelling that adjoins the Village Hall and faces over the open area along [address] opposite the School. The dwelling is constructed in coursed limestone, with a pantile roof and has a large chimney stack with two windows and a door at ground level and two windows at first floor level.

Whilst there are some examples of unsympathetic alterations and materials such as uPVC which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA; the continued use of traditional and authentic materials, designs and their relationship to the historic form and function of buildings is also a key component of the significance of the CA. As such, I do not agree with the [name] of Case (SoC) that uPVC windows are an established or positive component of the street scene. Appeal Decision: 6007201

Historic England advises in their guidance1 that replacement uPVC windows “pose one of the greatest threats to the heritage value of historic areas, particularly in towns and villages. Despite attempts at improving the design of these windows they are instantly recognisable because they cannot match the sections and proportions of historic joinery.”

[name] am unclear whether the windows or door that were replaced were original; when replacing windows and doors, [name] DE1 and DE5, supported by the RDG seek that it is important to understand and seek to preserve or enhance the significance of the building. This can be done by ensuring all intangible and tangible heritage values are first understood, such as Evidential, Communal, Aesthetic and [name]. When considering windows this could relate to openings, thickness and sheen of glazing, appropriate materials, design and constructional techniques which are authentic and characteristic of the period when the building was constructed. The windows that have been installed are uPVC double glazed, side hung casements, that have ‘stuck-on’ false glazing bars with 6 lights to each casement half to the first and ground floors. The door is a composite door with a window and woodgrain effect.

On my site visit I found that the windows are very thick in profile with the plans noting that they are 28mm thick with a large black spacer between the window panes visible. Whilst the black spacer aims to minimise the thickness compared with a silver spacer, the windows remained very thick in profile, unlike a traditionally glazed unit. I accept comments from the Appellant that it is only the windows that have changed without alteration to the size of the openings, however I disagree that the result of this proposal results in the ‘same appearance’ as an appropriately placed timber window or door, and that the visual appearance is the only consideration. I also accept that the design of uPVC replacements has become more sophisticated in recent years, however I do not agree that the use of uPVC replacements would be identical, replicate, or are as authentic as timber windows, particularly these examples that have been installed.

As shown in the elevation plans that accompany the appeal, and what was seen on the site visit, the frames and configuration of glazing are significantly thicker, do not contain functioning glazing bars, with the thicker units and large gap between glazing presenting a more reflective appearance against the more matt and uneven finish and appearance of a traditionally glazed window. The uPVC windows also maintains a perfect uniformed and manufactured finish that lacks the finesse and craftsmanship of a traditionally constructed timber window which ages over time. Additionally with the congruous trickle vents, it is readily apparent that the windows are modern uPVC replacements. The use of non-traditional products distracts and is a discordant addition in an area where authentic use of materials provides a positive contribution within the CA.

Consequently, I disagree that the proposed windows would maintain the appearance of the house or have a neutral effect upon the existing building as the installation does materially affect the external appearance of the building. The proposed windows are of a poor quality design and configuration, are of uPVC and have glazing bars that are inauthentic and materially diminish the architectural authenticity of the dwelling and the greater terrace and have an incongruous and harmful effect on the appearance of the CA. This is also applicable to the doors 1 Historic England (September 2017): ‘[name]: [name], Repair and Upgrading’ Appeal Decision: 6007201 where a composite door with woodgrain effect finish would lack the authenticity and craftsmanship of a timber door which ages over time. Despite this, the appropriateness of a window or door is not solely related to the visual appearance, but the authenticity of building materials and local vernacular and how this relates to the heritage values of this building as well as the broader significance of the CA.

[name] appreciate that the Appellant has sought to make what is termed a ‘real-world’ decision, this appears to be based on cost alone, rather than longer term environmental and historic environment benefits as outlined in LP Policy DE1 where there is a need for environmental efficiency and tackling elements that contribute to climate change, sustainability and the reduction of fossil fuels. I have not been presented with substantive evidence to suggest that the uPVC windows would significantly outperform well installed and maintained slimline double glazed timber windows which would also be thermally efficient and meet current building, environmental, security and fire safety regulations. Additionally, uPVC windows cannot be recycled once they have reached their short life expectancy, and are environmentally quite poor and inferior to a timber window which can be repaired, spliced, recycled and reused. The same argument is also present to the proposed door, whereby a robust and well maintained timber door also has appropriate security and building regulations support with regards to fire safety, energy efficiency, security and thermal performance.

I can also appreciate comments made by the Appellant that there is evidence within the locality and within the terrace of historic buildings with uPVC windows. I have not been given details as to why these buildings contain the use of uPVC, which may have also been installed without consent, or potentially before designation of the CA or the Article 4 Direction. In any event, the presence of detrimental elements such as uPVC windows and doors elsewhere in the street is not a strong point in favour of the appeal scheme, particularly when the Council have sought to place an Article 4 Direction to assist in reversing detriment caused by inappropriate installations. It is clear that in relation to this particular CA that in these circumstances the use of timber is a key component of its significance and how the building is experienced within the CA.

I also acknowledge an appeal decision2 where there was an approval given for uPVC windows within a Conservation Area. Having read this appeal, I am unclear of the relevance, given that it would appear that the Inspector in this case did not place emphasis on the building materials contributing to the significance of the Conservation Area, but found that the significance was related more to the ‘steeply rising elevated terraces, colour, height proportion and roof line.’ That is not the same in this appeal, where local vernacular, design and use of materials is a strong contributory element of this CA. As such I give little weight to this appeal which does not assist in providing justification for this development.

In conclusion of this matter, it is clear to me that the proposal would unacceptably harm the appearance of the appeal building and the character and appearance of the locality and would be contrary to [name] DE1 and DE5 and the RDG as described previously.

Although serious, the harm to the CA would be ‘less than substantial,’ within the meaning of the term in paragraph 215 of the Framework. Paragraph 213 of the 2 Appeal Ref: APP/X1165/D/24/3350973, Dated 12/11/24 Appeal Decision: 6007201 Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that, where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Appellant has not suggested any public benefits resulting from the proposal, however to me, the benefits of the scheme would be that the uPVC windows would have environmental benefits such as reduction in drafts, reducing energy consumption, improved living conditions, improved thermal performance and reduction in heating emissions which are predominantly private benefits. Additionally, the installation of windows would have had economic benefits in the short term employment of labourers. However, these benefits are not unique to this particular scheme or to uPVC windows, and as discussed, there may be other, more acceptable ways in which these same public benefits could be achieved which are more appropriate to the policies of the development plan.

I therefore find that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm I have identified. The scheme therefore conflicts with the Framework, which directs, at paragraph 212, ‘that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation ... irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to their significance.’

In conclusion of this matter the scheme fails to preserve the character and appearance of the wider CA and the duty under s72 of the PLBCA. The proposed scheme would therefore conflict with Paragraphs 212 and 216 of the Framework, and additionally would be contrary to [name] DE1 and DE5 and the RDG as described previously.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.