Replacement windows to front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 January 2023 by G Roberts BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 February 2023. Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/D/22/3306222 The Stable House, 31A Alexandra Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 1LT • 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 Michael Woodward against the decision of Isle of Wight Council. • The application Ref. 22/00861/HOU, dated 12 May 2022, was refused by notice dated 8 July 2022. • The development proposed is replacement windows to front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement windows to front elevation at The Stable House, 31A Alexandra Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight, PO33 1LT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 22/00861/HOU, dated 12 May 2022 and the plans submitted with it, and subject to the conditions listed below. 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, labelled ‘Front Elevation – Proposed Windows - Date 31 March 2022 REV B’ and the details set out in the application; the replacement windows shall include Rehau heritage style uPVC cream coloured, wood grained, sash windows with Georgian bars, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies within the Ryde, St John’s Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Similar advice is to be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021) (Framework) and in policies DM2 and DM11 of the Isle of White Core Strategy & Development Management Development Plan Document (IOWCS) (March 2012). The appeal site is also the subject of an Article 4 Direction, which applies to various parts of the CA. This has removed certain permitted development rights including Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/22/3306222 2 those in Schedule 2, Part 1 and Class A to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 1995 (as amended). 4. The Councils ‘Ryde, St John’s Conservation Area – Conservation Area Appraisal’ (Appraisal) (April 2011) breaks down the CA into individual ‘character areas’. The appeal site falls within ‘Character Area 2: The Church of St John the Baptist’ where the Appraisal states that its special interest arises from the fact that it is a predominantly residential area that radiates southward from the prominent church and where 19th Century villas sit beside 20th Century suburban housing, essentially within linear ribbon developments. 5. Based on my observations on site, the Appraisal provides an accurate summary of the architectural and historic qualities of this character area. The Appraisal confirms that the host property is not listed and neither is it locally listed or sited within the setting of any such buildings. Whilst the Appraisal also identifies key (important) views, none of these relate to the appeal site and there appear to be no specific references to this part of Alexandra Road. 6. The appeal site comprises a former stable house that has been converted to residential accommodation. The host property is set well back from Alexandra Road itself and sits behind a high stone boundary wall that screens a large part of its ground floor. Whilst the host retains a number of its original features, based on the evidence before me it would appear that the windows on the front elevation are not original and were added when the building was converted into residential accommodation sometime in the 1980’s. 7. The appeal proposal would involve the replacement of three windows on the front elevation, one on the ground floor and two on the first floor, set within the small flat roof dormers. Two smaller windows on the ground floor would be retained and refurbished. All the existing windows to be replaced are wooden double glazed casements and the Council’s Delegated Report appears to accept that these date from the 1980’s. The proposed replacement windows would comprise uPVC cream coloured, wood grained, sash windows with Georgian bars manufactured by Rehau. 8. The Appraisal states that the Council’s will always encourage the repair and refurbishment of original windows particularly where the fabric of the original window is an important part of the historic intertest of the window and forms an integral part of the character and appearance of the property in question. In this particular case, the Council accept that the windows to be replaced are in a poor condition and that the windows on the upper level are rotten, which is affecting the integrity of the flat roofed dormers and from my own assessment, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. 9. Even so, the Council maintain that the existing windows contribute positively towards the character and appearance of the CA due to their design and wooden arch details, reflecting they contend the arched brick headers to the original openings on the host. I do not agree and consider that the existing wooden arch detailing appears to be somewhat contrived and out of keeping with the host and its neighbours. I also note that the Appraisal states that original 19th Century property windows within the CA comprise mostly sliding sashes with small glazing panes. Furthermore, my attention has not been drawn to any similar designed windows (with wooden arch detail) within this part of the CA and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the existing windows are of any historic or special interest. On the contrary, Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/22/3306222 3 the evidence suggests the opposite, namely that they are not original, that they were installed in the 1980’s, that their fabric and design is not of any historic value and that they did not form an integral part of the former stable house’s character or appearance. 10. In relation to the replacement windows, as I observed on site, the proposed design and glazing proportions would be similar to that found on adjacent properties, including The Coach House (to the south) and 29 Alexandra Road (to the north), with the latter also including different styles on the ground floor compared to the first floor as would be the case with the appeal proposal. In that respect, the overall design of the replacement windows would integrate well and respect the design of neighbouring windows. 11. I am also satisfied that the use of uPVC cream coloured, wood grained, sash windows with Georgian bars would be acceptable. That finding is supported by the photographs of similar windows in the Appellant’s evidence, including at 11 Alexandra Road (No.11) (north east of the appeal site). I understand that replacement Rehau heritage windows were approved on No.11 in March 2022. Even so, as that property is set well back from the road, as is the appeal site, I agree with the Appellant that when viewed from public vantage points it is difficult to differentiate the use of uPVC within such heritage designs. 12. Overall, the appeal proposal would not result in the loss of any existing architectural detail of historic value or any feature or view that contributes to the special importance of this ‘character area’ or the wider CA. Any change in the appearance of the host property and this part of the streetscene would, in my view, be minimal and would not result in any harm to the character or appearance of the CA as a whole. 13. Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, as a whole, in that it would leave it unharmed, and would thus accord with policies DM2 and DM11 of the IOWCS and the corresponding policies of the Framework. Conditions 14. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance chapter on the use of planning conditions. A condition requiring further details to be submitted and approved by the Council is unnecessary and I have simply worded the condition so that it requires compliance with the submitted plan and details of the replacement windows manufacture and design, as set out in the application. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above and having taken all the matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Roberts INSPECTOR