Work proposed is described as ‘replace existing wooden single sash windows with same style but double glazed (7 units)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2017 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13th October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M1005/D/17/3180488 23 Mill Street, Belper, Derbyshire, DE56 1DT  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 Miss Vicky Frost against the decision of Amber Valley Borough Council.  The application Ref AVA/2017/0253, dated 3 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 May 2017.  The work proposed is described as ‘replace existing wooden single sash windows with same style but double glazed (7 units)’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed windows on the character and appearance of the Belper and Milford Conservation Area (CA) and the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site (WHS). Reasons 3. In considering proposals for planning permission, the duty imposed by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. The paragraph goes on to say that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset. Paragraph 134 requires that where the harm is less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 4. Policies EN27 and EN29 of the Amber Valley Local Plan (LP) (2006) reflect the statutory duty and accord with the Framework in that respect, although they fail to acknowledge the need to weigh any less than substantial harm against the public benefits of the proposal as sought in the Framework. 5. The appeal site lies within the Belper and Milford CA and the Derwent Valley Mills WHS. The significance of the CA and the WHS derives from the Appeal Decision APP/M1005/D/17/3180488 2 association with the industrial heritage of the area. The appeal dwelling is an end terrace, corner property of three storeys and built of stone, probably as a mill worker’s dwelling. At my visit I saw that there are many similar cottages in the area that have replacement windows whose design and/or detail is not consistent with that of the original windows in other properties. However, those replacement windows do not make a positive contribution to, and detract from, the character and appearance of the area. By contrast, those dwellings that retain their original windows such as the nearby cottage at no 27 or have accurately detailed replicas make a strong contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 6. The existing windows in the property are replacement single glazed windows of a tilting sash design in a stained timber finish with four glazing panes. The proposed windows would be of a sash design of uPVC in a white woodgrain finish. The chunky design does not replicate the slender proportions of the original windows at no 27 and the frame and horizontal glazing bars are noticeably wider and thicker which would be further emphasised when open. It is also likely that in order to accommodate their depth the frames would have to sit flush with the external wall in contrast to the recessed original windows at no 27. These differences in design and detail would not be indistinguishable from the original windows elsewhere in the street as the appellant alleges, instead they would contrast with those windows and would detract from the character and appearance of the area. 7. The appellant says that the existing windows are unsecured, draughty and in a state of disrepair. Whilst I understand that she wishes to provide greater thermal and acoustic performance for her property, I am not persuaded that there are no other options that could provide these benefits in a more sympathetic manner. I have noted the corner location of the property whose side elevation containing five of the seven windows fronts onto Pingle Lane, a private single track and the appellant’s contention that scaffolding would be required for maintenance. However, I am not persuaded that maintenance would require such a large scaffolding as to cause an undue level of disruption to Pingle Lane which is, in any case, a quiet lane serving only a few properties. Whilst the level of harm would be less than substantial, there are, therefore, no public benefits arising from the proposal that would outweigh the identified harm as required in paragraph 134 of the Framework. Conclusion 8. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the CA and the WHS. It would conflict with LP policies EN27 and EN29 and the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that justify determining the appeal otherwise. The appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne Inspector