Replacement of steel windows with uPVC double glazed units matching those windows on lower floors. Forming Juliet balconies which will match those on lower floors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2016 by David Cross BA (Hons), PGDip, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 3 January 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W4515/D/16/3155297 The Granary, New Quay, North Shields, Tyne & Wear NE29 6LQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Gordon Jenkins against the decision of North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/00212/FULH, dated 6 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2016.  The development proposed is replacement of steel windows with uPVC double glazed units matching those windows on lower floors. Forming Juliet balconies which will match those on lower floors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the New Quay Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 3. There are a number of elements to the proposal, including replacement windows and the provision of Juliet balconies. However, the Council’s reason for refusal relates to the use of uPVC windows and doors and it is this element of the scheme that I shall concentrate on in my decision. 4. The CA contains a mixture of buildings which are representative of the development of the area and the variety of uses within it and which contribute to the area’s significance as a designated heritage asset. I note that The Granary is identified as making a contribution to the character and appearance of the area in the community character appraisal. At my site visit I saw that the building is prominent in views from the North Shields Ferry Landing which is one of the principal entrances into the CA. I am mindful that the appellant queries the prominence of the upper floors of the building. However it was apparent at my site visit that the full elevation of the building is readily visible from the ferry landing and is viewed as a whole when passing to and from the CA. 5. Although of a utilitarian appearance, the existing windows use relatively slender frames and glazing bars. Whilst the windows are not original to the building, they are representative of its commercial history and reflect the Appeal Decision APP/W4515/D/16/3155297 2 historical development of the area. In comparison, uPVC windows and doors would have an inappropriately heavy and over-prominent appearance and would be of a residential character, which would detract from the contribution that this building makes to the CA. 6. I acknowledge that existing doors and windows on the ground and first floor of the building use uPVC frames. However, I note that the Council states that these pre-date the Article 4(2) direction which controls the replacement of doors and windows in the area. In any case, these windows and doors demonstrate the heavy and over-prominent appearance of uPVC frames which detract from the character and appearance of the building. 7. I am mindful of the appellant’s concerns in relation to the use of wooden window frames in such an exposed location and the associated problems of maintenance on an elevation fronting the river. However, the windows being replaced are steel framed and the Council states that it has required metal framed windows on prominent elevations elsewhere in the CA. No evidence has been provided to me that the use of metal frames would be any less resilient to weathering than uPVC. Therefore, whilst harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial, the benefits arising from the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh that harm. 8. I conclude that the proposal would fail to complement the host building and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the design and heritage aims of Policy E16/2 and Development Control Policy Statement 8 of the North Tyneside Unitary Development Plan 2002. These policies are broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the North Shields Fish Quay Neighbourhood Plan Supplementary Planning Document 2013 which states that new development should use materials that are sympathetic to its surroundings. 9. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR