New windows front only’. (sic) Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2021 by C Coyne BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/G2713/D/21/3268063 26 Topcliffe Road, Sowerby YO7 1RD • 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 Aaron Hollywood against the decision of Hambleton District Council. • The application Ref 20/01304/FUL, dated 20 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 10 November 2020. • The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘new windows front only’. (sic) Decision 1. The appeal is allowed for retrospective application for the replacement of all front windows and door at 26 Topcliffe Road, Sowerby YO7 1RD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 20/01304/FUL, dated 20 June 2020, and the plans and documents submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. The decision notice refers to the emerging Hambleton Local Plan. However, this plan has not yet been examined and found sound and therefore, I attach very limited weight to this matter. 3. The appeal property is within the Thirsk and Sowerby Conservation Area, and an Article 4 Direction1 is in place. This Direction restricts development that would otherwise be permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). Consequently, planning consent is required in the area for, amongst other things, the installation of windows. 4. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘The Act’) I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Thirsk and Sowerby Conservation Area. 5. The application that led to this appeal was retrospective in nature, and at my site visit I saw that the windows and door, as described, had been installed. I have assessed the appeal on this basis. 6. The Council have described the development as ‘retrospective application for the replacement of all front windows and door’. I note that the appellant has 1 The Hambleton District Council Thirsk and Sowerby Conservation Area Article 4 Direction 2003. Appeal Decision APP/G2713/D/21/3268063 2 also utilised this description on their appeal form. I consider that this revision provides a succinct and accurate description of the proposal and I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 7. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Thirsk and Sowerby Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 8. The appeal property is located within character area 6 as set out within the CA Character Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). It identifies the large properties on South Crescent which face Topcliffe Road as making a particularly important contribution to the character and significance of the CA due to their polychromatic brick frontages and linear features and that whilst some of them have had modern repairs and alterations of varied quality made to them, that they make this positive contribution nonetheless. It also identifies nos. 42 -44 Topcliffe Road which stand back from the street in their own grounds, similar to those on South Crescent, as making a positive contribution due to their boundary treatments and details such as original pattern ironwork, railings, door styles and forms of windows. 9. The SPD goes on to state that closer into town the quality of the street frontage diminishes with the later buildings being constructed of ‘best red’ engineering brick, and that although much of the woodwork survives, street edge railings have been lost and much of the older detailing has either deteriorated or been replaced. It also highlights that these buildings are set closer to the pavement edge and that this gives a more urban feel to Topcliffe Road at this point. Indeed, map 2 of the SPD identifies nos. 28 to 40 Topcliffe Road as being an important frontage and these therefore also make a positive contribution to the CA’s character and significance albeit a lesser one. 10. Nos. 18 to 26 Topcliffe Road are located further along than these properties and there is a gap between these sets of terraced properties. In addition according to the Council’s officer report all the properties within this small terrace apart from the appeal property – i.e. nos. 18, 20, 22 & 24 - already have modern uPVC frames and replacement doors installed with no. 18 recently being granted planning permission for the installation of uPVC frames. The officer report also states that the impact of the proposed alterations to no. 26 on the character and appearance of the CA are ‘very limited’. 11. Consequently, this plus the fact that this part of Topcliffe Road has not been identified by the SPD as an important frontage means that the frontages of nos. 18 to 26 make less of a contribution to the character and significance of the CA. Furthermore, it would also be reasonable to think that the character and significance of the CA has already been eroded in this particular part of Topcliffe road given the fact that all the other properties in the small terrace comprising nos. 18 to 26 apart from the appeal property all have uPVC windows and doors installed. 12. In addition, according to the appellant’s evidence and from what I observed on my site visit, a good proportion of the properties on this part of Topcliffe Road Appeal Decision APP/G2713/D/21/3268063 3 and in the surrounding area also have uPVC windows and doors installed on their frontages. 13. Accordingly, while I acknowledge that the proposal would represent a contrast with the design and material finish of other properties in the area, I consider that it would not harmfully detract from the character, setting or significance of the wider CA thereby having a neutral impact. 14. As a result, I find that the proposal would preserve the character of the CA in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I therefore conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the preservation of the character of the Thirsk and Sowerby Conservation Area. Consequently, it would meet the requirements of policies CP16 and CP17 of the adopted Hambleton Core Strategy and policies DP28 and DP32 of the adopted Hambleton Development Policies Development Plan Document. Other Matters 15. Concerns have been raised by interested parties in that the proposal should be refused given that it would not use traditional materials and is within an area subject to an article 4 direction. However, these concerns do not alter or outweigh my conclusion on the main issue above. Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. The Council has not requested that any planning conditions be imposed as the proposal is retrospective, and I have therefore allowed the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and documents. C Coyne INSPECTOR