Replacement of existing sliding sash windows with woodgrain finish timber alternative PVCu frames

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2020 by R J Jackson BA MPhil DMS MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/D/20/3247742 29 Wallis Road, Basingstoke RG21 3DN • 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 & Mrs Tyson against the decision of Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref 19/02810/HSE, dated 10 October 2019, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2019. • The development proposed is replacement of existing sliding sash windows with woodgrain finish timber alternative PVCu frames. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of existing sliding sash windows with woodgrain finish timber alternative PVCu frames at 29 Wallis Road, Basingstoke RG21 3DN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/02810/HSE, dated 10 October 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan Site Plan AD1: Existing view AD2: Proposed Replacement Frames AD3: Visual comparison AD4: Condition of Existing Frames 3) Each replacement window hereby permitted shall follow the form of the window it is to replace in terms of the number of panes and where and how the sashes are to be formed. 4) The replacement windows hereby permitted shall be ‘Bygone Symphony’ PVCu double-glazed sash units and shall sit within the original window recesses. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/20/3247742 2 Procedural matter 2. The Council in describing the proposal on the decision notice referred to the number of windows to be replaced, nineteen. However, I consider that level of precision is not necessary to describe the proposal and have thus used the description set out on the application form in the heading and in the formal decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the Fairfields Conservation Area (the FCA). Reasons 4. The appeal property was constructed in the 1960s and consists of a detached two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof. There are two single storey extensions on either side with the western one extending slightly to the front of the main elevation. The property was designed in a simple neo-Georgian style with vertically sliding sash-windows. There are four windows on the main front elevation, along with a small round window above the front door which in turn is surrounded by a neo-Classical surround. There are sash windows in the extensions and other windows visible from the highway in the side elevations. There is a tall hedge along the front boundary, with views only available through gaps. 5. The appeal site lies at the southern end of the FCA. The FCA lies to the south and west of Basingstoke town centre. According to the Conservation Area Appraisal (the CAA), the “essence”, and thus the character and appearance of the area, of the FCA is the rows and terraces of two-storey brick Victorian and Edwardian housing. This is intermixed with key individual buildings and defined by public and private open spaces. 6. The Appraisal Plan identifies those buildings, views and key features that are considered essential to the special character or appearance of the Conservation Area and thus give its significance. In addition to the listed buildings, it also includes unlisted buildings of particular individual or group value as notable. The appeal property is not listed, nor is it identified as a notable building. However, as the Appraisal correctly identifies this does not undermine the value of other unmarked buildings or structures that reflect the historic development of the area without detracting from its special qualities. 7. The buildings in the cul-de-sac element of Wallis Road beyond the junction with Castle Road are generally detached dwellings, and predominantly post-date the Victorian and Edwardian eras. They are well-spaced and provide a pleasing aspect. Some have PVCu windows, but I am advised that these pre-date the designation of the FCA. The appeal building is typical of its period and was constructed in materials of that time. I find it is neutral to the character and appearance, and thus significance, of the FCA. 8. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that with respect to development affecting buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. In addition, Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/20/3247742 3 significance of a designated heritage asset, such as the FCA, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 9. The proposal is to replace the existing single glazed sliding sash timber windows on the front, side and rear elevations, with double glazed, sliding sash PVCu white timber-effect windows from the ‘Bygone Symphony’ range. 10. The CAA notes that given the domestic scale and simple provincial architecture of the buildings in the Conservation Area, historic joinery such as sash windows, doors and doorcases are often the features that define the appearance of properties. It continues that where buildings are in close-knit, continuous street frontages the relationship of these features, and their historic arrangement, becomes a significant factor in the overall special character of the area. However, as I have identified above, the buildings in this part of the FCA are not close-knit. 11. The concerns of the Council are that it has not be demonstrated that the existing windows are beyond repair and that replacement is justified, but if replacement is justified, considers that the replacement with double glazed sash windows would be harmful to the FCA, although of less than substantial harm, and the public benefits do not outweigh that harm. 12. On the first of these matters, I note the Council’s Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (the Heritage SPD) sets out a presumption in favour of retention and repair where necessary of building components, such as windows, which contribute to the special architectural and/or historic interest of a conservation area. However, while a building of the 1960s and interesting as a building of that era, this building is not of any special architectural or historic interest. As I noted above it is a typical building of that date and neutral in the FCA. 13. Principle WD01 of the Heritage SPD deals with the repair and replacement of windows which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, as I have found above the appeal building, to which the windows contribute, is only neutral, and therefore this policy, which deals with windows that make a positive contribution, does not apply. This is not a case where the windows ‘elevate’ an otherwise harmful building to neutrality. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no need for the appellants to show that the windows are beyond repair. This would appear to be confirmed in Table B1 of the Heritage SPD as regards windows which make a neutral contribution. 14. However, in any event, the appellants have provided photographs of the current condition of the windows. I am satisfied that within the context of a building from the 1960s with rotting timber, the effect of water (both condensation and through ingress) and other defects that they have now reached the end of their useful lives. 15. The next issue is to consider the replacement windows, since should they be harmful to the FCA, and the effect should be judged against the FCA as a whole, then permission should not be granted unless the public benefits would outweigh that harm. 16. The appellants have demonstrated that the proposed windows are very similar in all the dimensions to those currently on the building; the largest difference Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/20/3247742 4 apart from the depth of the window is 1 mm, which would not be noticeable. The fenestration patterns would be the same, and there would be vertical sliding sashes. The other details are also the same, and the woodgrain effect would give the appearance of painted wood and avoid a reflective appearance. 17. The biggest differences would be as to the depth of the windows, particularly through the provision of the double glazing which can give rise to double reflections, and externally applied glazing bars. However, neither would be material. The overall dimension of the box would be the same as at present. The proposal would use 10 mm white spacers which would be minimal, and the glazing bars on both sides would give an appropriately solid appearance. 18. I am therefore satisfied that in the particular context of a pleasant but unremarkable building from the 1960s that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the FCA. As set out above great weight should be given to this. Given I have found there would be no harm it is not necessary for me to consider the case as regards public benefits. 19. I have noted the Council’s reference to what it considers to be comparable situations where appeals have been dismissed. Two were in different conservation areas where different considerations will apply. Of the two in the FCA both1 relate to Victorian buildings and both are considered Notable Buildings in the Appraisal Plan. I therefore consider that there are material differences to the current proposal. 20. I have also considered the two Historic England publications that have been referred to by the Council. In the case of the first of these documents 'Traditional Windows Their Care, Repair and Upgrading', I consider that to describe the existing windows as an irreplaceable resource would be to overemphasise their importance. As the Council indicates, the existing windows are not of particular historic interest. In relation to the second, 'Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings - Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to Historic and Traditionally Constructed Buildings' would also overemphasise the importance of this building at this time. I therefore consider that they do not alter my conclusions. 21. Consequently, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the FCA as a whole. As such the proposal would comply with Policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2019 which require developments to be of high quality and conserve the quality of the borough’s heritage assets. It would also comply with the Heritage SPD and the CAA as set out above. It would comply with paragraph 193 of the Framework as set out above. Conditions 22. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the requirements of the national Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. 23. Due to the lack of precise detailing, that being elevations of the whole building, I have imposed a condition requiring each window to follow the form, that is 1 APP/H1705/D/19/3228143 and APP/H1705/D/17/3184218 Appeal Decision APP/H1705/D/20/3247742 5 the number of panes and location of opening, of that it is replacing also in the interests of certainty. 24. In order to ensure that the windows have the appropriate finish and to ensure that they would preserve the character and appearance of the FCA I have imposed a condition specifying the make and model of the windows. Conclusion 25. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R J Jackson INSPECTOR