Replacing all existing timber windows with uPVC alternatives of similar style and dimensions, colour of windows to be changed from white to grey to better complement surrounding environment at 17 Bentfield End Causeway, Stansted, CM24 8HU

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008506 17 Bentfield End Causeway, Stansted, CM24 8HU • 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 Mrs Charlotte Tomlinson against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application Ref is UTT/25/3155/HHF. • The development proposed is replacing all existing timber windows with uPVC alternatives of similar style and dimensions, colour of windows to be changed from white to grey to better complement surrounding environment at 17 Bentfield End Causeway, Stansted, CM24 8HU. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is whether the proposed replacement windows would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Reasons 3. Under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is a general duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. This is reflected in the policies of the local development plan. The appeal site is a late nineteenth century two storey red brick terraced cottage. It is located within the Stansted Mountfitchet Conservation Area, which has been designated for its special architectural and historic interest. The appeal property is typical of the buildings that make up this special character, and the windows, both in form and materials, are elements that contribute to the special character. 4. The replacement uPVC window frames would introduce a contemporary and modern form of windows. They are proposed to be ‘grained’ - “Realistic wood-grain effect (e.g., heritage timber-look foiling)” - with the aim of replicating timber, but that would not be successful, lacking the authenticity of wood and the craftsmanship of traditional timber units. There are other examples of uPVC replacement windows within the Conservation Area, and indeed in the immediate vicinity of the appeal dwelling, but they stand out as being inappropriate and regrettable. These examples are likely to predate the conservation area designation, and reflect the fact that there was a mix of fenestration in the street at that time. If the appearance Appeal Decision 6008506 2 of individual houses were continued to be altered in this way, it would result in a loss of quality and character to the area. 5. I conclude that the proposed replacement windows would not meet the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR