Replacement front windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 December 2017 by David Spencer BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T3535/D/17/3184505 28 St Aubyns Road, Lowestoft NR33 0EG  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 James Cole against the decision of Waveney District Council.  The application Ref DC/17/0739/FUL, dated 23 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 July 2017.  The development proposed is replacement front windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the banner above is taken from the Local Planning Authority’s decision notice which I consider more accurately describes the appeal proposal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed replacement front windows would enhance the appearance of the South Lowestoft Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The South Lowestoft Conservation Area (SLCA) is a widely drawn designation that extends southwards from the commercial area of the harbour and railway station along London Road South. This is an area of imposing townhouses and villas along the seafront with more modest terraced housing inland to the west. It is an urban area characterised by the Nineteenth Century and later expansion of the town. The appearance of buildings in the SLCA is mainly of gault brick and slate roofs with a reasonable number retaining timber windows of varying styles. The character and appearance attributes I have outlined comprise the significance of the SLCA as a heritage asset. 5. The appeal property is one of a semi-detached pair of dwellings whose style and appearance, including coloured rendered walls and individual front timber fenestration indicates a slightly later addition in the SLCA. Whilst it is not typical of the appearance of the majority of buildings in the SLCA, No.28 St Aubyns Road nonetheless makes a positive contribution to the appearance of the SLCA in large part due to the quality and detailing of the pleasingly unusual and elegant large timber bay windows on the front elevation. This includes the simple casement windows with leaded top-lights at first floor level and the substantial ground floor bow top sash window with its adjoining vertical Appeal Decision APP/T3535/D/17/3184505 2 openings and delicate elements of coloured glass. The ground floor opening at No.28 is replicated on the neighbouring semi-detached dwelling providing an agreeable degree of symmetry in the street scene. 6. The appeal property is positioned at the corner of St Aubyns Road and College Road such that it is prominent within the street scene. This prominence is augmented by the width of the forward projection of the front bay. Whilst the existing windows are not the simple sash windows found elsewhere on St Aubyns Road they are appropriate to architecture of the host dwelling. Their design is resonant of the arts and craft vogue of the late Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century and, notwithstanding issues of maintenance with these windows, they clearly retain historical and architectural value in this part of the SLCA. Consequently, their loss would be both harmful and conspicuous. 7. I accept the appellant’s submission that the particular design and appearance of the proposed uPVC replacement windows in this appeal proposal would be generally difficult to distinguish from many wooden sash windows. I also noted that across the SLCA windows have been replaced including many examples of uPVC frames designed to simulate the format and proportions of timber sash openings. However, I am not persuaded that the uPVC sash windows proposed here would replicate the architectural quality or individual appearance of the existing timber windows. I find the loss of architectural detailing and individuality would be particularly harmful, including tracing the legibility of an unusual and slightly later building within the SLCA. 8. I therefore conclude the proposed replacement front windows would fail to enhance the appearance of the South Lowestoft Conservation Area. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM30 of the Waveney Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2011 in that it would not be a suitable design that would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. It would also be contrary to the guidance in the Council’s Built Heritage and Design Supplementary Planning Document 2012 on replacing timber windows including the scoring guidance on factors such as age/rarity, prominence and quality. The proposal would also fail to accord with the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to secure high quality design. 9. The harm to the appearance of the SLCA would be less substantial and therefore paragraph 134 of the NPPF expects such harm to be balanced against the public benefits. The appellant submits that the proposal would improve the thermal efficiency of the building. There is little evidence as to why alternative measures would not achieve comparable improvements in thermal performance. No other persuasive arguments have been put forward and accordingly the level of benefit identified would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage asset, which the NPPF identifies are an irreplaceable resource. 10. For the reasons given above therefore, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. David Spencer Inspector.