Replacement of existing wooden windows with UPVC woodgrain flush casement windows. Replacement of existing wooden front and back doors with composite doors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 April 2026 by J L Cheesley DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004504 Lantern Cottage, Top Street, Wing, Oakham, Rutland LE15 8SE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Keith Rowbottom against the decision of Rutland County Council. • The application Ref is 2025/1220/FUL. • The development proposed is replacement of existing wooden windows with UPVC woodgrain flush casement windows. Replacement of existing wooden front and back doors with composite doors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Wing Conservation Area and the setting of City Yard House, a Grade II listed building. Reasons 3. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability: firstly at Section 16(2), of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and secondly, at Section 72(1), of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 4. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 5. The appeal site lies within the Wing Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The character of this Conservation Area is primarily that of a traditional village with dwellings of predominately traditional design. The adjacent dwelling, City Yard House, is a large Grade II listed building of traditional design. The setting of this building is the immediate grounds and surrounding village. 6. The appeal property is a modern dwelling of traditional design with timber fenestration. The existing timber window frames and doors, make a positive contribution to the traditional appearance of the dwelling and the significance of the Conservation Area. As such, the dwelling with timber window frames and doors, due to their design and materials, make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 7. The proposal includes replacing the timber window frames with UPVC frames with 28mm double glazing and the timber doors with composite doors. I have been Appeal Decision 6004504 2 referred to examples of UPVC window frames in the Conservation Area. Where there are UPVC window frames, I consider that they do little to preserve the character and appearance of the area. 8. The proposed UPVC windows would be High Quality Design Residence windows with heritage design details and proportions with clean sight lines. They would have concealed trickle vents and timberweld joints simulating traditional wood corner joints and a woodgrain surface finish. 9. From my observations, due to their bulky frames and clear UPVC appearance, even with a woodgrain surface, the proposed window frames would appear as incongruous additions to the dwelling in this setting. The proposed UPVC window frames and composite doors would not replicate the traditional finish of timber window frames and doors, and they would not wear in the same way. The use of modern materials to this degree would not preserve the setting of the neighbouring Grade II Listed Building. 10. I note the extensive landscaping around the dwelling, providing limited views from Top Street and neighbouring properties, including City Yard House. Nevertheless, hiding development that is not appropriate is not good planning practice and landscaping does not necessarily have longevity. 11. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. In my opinion, due to the design and materials proposed, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably detract from the traditional design of the host building, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of City Yard House, but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework. 12. Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 13. I realise that the proposal would improve the property's thermal performance. However, energy efficiency could be achieved in other ways. Energy efficiency is a material consideration, and I have attributed some weight to this matter, which would provide limited public benefit. I have attributed considerable importance and weight to the duty and the presumptive desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and preserving the setting of a listed building, which I do not consider, for the reasons stated above, are outweighed by any public benefits. 14. For the above reasons, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS19 and CS22 in the Rutland Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011), Policies SP15 and SP20 in the Rutland Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (2014) and Policy HBE7 and Appendix 3 in the Langham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 (2017), particularly where they seek high standards of design and seek to preserve the appearance of conservation areas. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the Framework where the Framework seeks to conserve heritage assets. The above policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework on this matter. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR