Proposed replacement windows, doors, fascia, soffit, guttering and downspouts

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008329 St Martins Vicarage Brabyns Brow, Marple Bridge, Stockport SK6 5DT • 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 Alan Kempster-Down against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/096065. • The development proposed is described as “proposed replacement windows, doors, fascia, soffit, guttering and downspouts”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Preliminary Matter 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. 3. It is my understanding that no fresh plans were accepted by the Council and thus did not form part of the application. Accordingly, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have referred to the original plans, namely: PROP, NEW WINDOWS, DOORS, FASCIA, SOFFIT, GUTTERS & O/SPOUTS D901, D902 and D903. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to the Marple Bridge Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of a grade II listed building. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is a detached unlisted two-storey stone vicarage which forms part of a small historic group comprising St Martin's Church, the Parish Hall and 19 Brabyns Brow, which are grade II listed. The group occupies an elevated site that was historically associated with the Brabyns Estate and is set within a heavily wooded landscape which provides an attractive green setting and contributes positively to its character and appearance. St Martin's Church is a notable Arts and Crafts building of considerable architectural interest. The vicarage occupies a prominent position immediately adjacent the church and, together with the other listed buildings, forms an important component of this historic cluster within the CA. 6. Although set back from the highway and screened by mature trees and vegetation, the vicarage remains readily appreciable in views of and from the church and Appeal Decision 6008329 2 shares a close visual and spatial relationship with the surrounding heritage assets. Consequently, the building makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA and to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. In particular, the consistent use of traditional materials, architectural detailing and craftsmanship across the group reinforces the visual harmony that is characteristic of this part of the CA and contributes to its special architectural and historic significance. 7. The proposal seeks to replace the existing timber windows and doors with uPVC alternatives. It would also involve the replacement of timber fascias and soffits together with replacement rainwater goods. An Article 4 Direction applies to the property which removes permitted development rights for alterations of this nature. The purpose is to retain original features and materials which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA and to ensure that unsympathetic alterations are subject to planning control. 8. I confirmed on my site visit that the downpipes are of plastic construction and not cast iron as suggested by the Conservation Officer. Nevertheless, the principal element of the proposal relates to the replacement of the existing timber windows, doors, facias and soffits with uPVC. Whilst modern uPVC products can replicate the broad appearance of timber, they typically exhibit a heavier frame profile, different detailing and a more uniform, smoother and flatter finish. In this case, those characteristics would unacceptably erode the subtle and obviously more tactile qualities associated with traditional timber joinery and diminish the contribution that the existing fenestration makes to the character of the dwelling and its historic surroundings. 9. While I noted a limited number of properties within the wider CA that incorporate uPVC windows, these examples do not establish a prevailing character for the area. Rather, timber fenestration remains the predominant form of window treatment and continues to make a positive contribution to the CA's significance. Given that the timber windows assist in integrating the appeal site with its historic surroundings, the existence of a small number of unsympathetic alterations elsewhere does not justify further erosion of the qualities that the CA designation and Article 4 Direction seek to protect. 10. As a result of the above therefore, the proposals would harm the significance of the CA such that they would neither preserve nor enhance its character or appearance. The overall effect would be localised but noticeably impactful in perpetuity and thus, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) at the upper end of less than substantial. The introduction of uPVC materials, including windows in place of the original timber units, would unacceptably erode the building’s originality, causing less than substantial harm on the lower end, to the adjacent grade II listed St Martin’s Church through development within its setting. The scheme would thus fail to acceptably preserve its setting. 11. The conservation of these heritage assets (the CA and listed building) is a matter of considerable weight and importance. As per the Framework, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. There would be some economic public benefit, during installation. However, this would be time limited in its effect. Ultimately, the mainstay of the benefits would be private. Therefore, the public benefits in this instance carry only very limited weight that would, by definition, be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA. Appeal Decision 6008329 3 12. As such the proposals conflict with Policies SIE-1 and SIE-3 of the Stockport Core Strategy DPD, 2011, saved Policies HC1.3 and CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan (Review), 2006, and guidance contained in the Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document, 2011. Collectively, these require, amongst other things, that development preserves or enhances the special architectural and historic significance of heritage assets. With special regard to the use of appropriate materials. Other Matters 13. Unimplemented and subsequently lapsed permissions do not establish a fallback position or confer any entitlement to carry out the development now proposed. I have not been provided with the approved plans or any supporting documentation associated with any such schemes. Consequently, I am unable to establish the precise nature of the development that was approved, the material considerations that were taken into account, or the reasons for the decision reached. 14. Examples of accepted timber alternatives submitted, relate to different sites, heritage assets and local policy contexts. Consequently, they are of limited assistance in determining the appeal before me, which must be assessed on its own merits having regard to the particular significance of this CA, the setting of the adjacent grade II listed church, and the relevant development plan policies. 15. Little information has been provided regarding the two cited permissions within the borough where uPVC replacement windows were approved. Including the significance of the affected heritage assets, the existing architectural features, or the material considerations that informed those decisions. Both permissions pre- date the current appeal by a considerable period. I therefore ascribe them only limited weight. 16. Whilst the Council’s advice and delays in correspondence have caused frustration, this matter is between the main parties and does not affect my consideration of the main issue. Any concerns relating to conduct are best addressed through direct engagement with the Council, utilising any complaints procedure that it may have. Conclusion and Recommendation 17. The proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR