Replacement of windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2026 by Paul Martinson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011198 16 Howard Court, Norfolk Street, North Shields NE30 1NZ • 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 Robin Birkett against the decision of North Tyneside Council. • The application Ref is 26 00240/FUL. • The development proposed is Replacement of windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site lies within the Northumberland Square Conservation Area. I have therefore had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 3. I have taken into account the national decision-making (DM) policies contained within the new National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), as published on 17 August 2026. Any reference to the Framework below is therefore a reference to this new version. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposed windows would preserve the character or appearance of the Northumberland Square Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 5. The area comprising the CA developed in late Georgian times on the bank top at North Shields behind development along the river side. It includes Northumberland Square, a high quality Georgian development around a central garden and the neighbouring streets towards the bank top. Many of the buildings contained within its boundary were at the forefront of town planning and architectural fashion at the time of construction, particularly in the case of the elegant ashlar faced terrace on the north side of the square. Today the CA forms part of the town centre of North Shields. The CA has a varied character comprising a mix of residential and commercial properties primarily dating to the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with a reasonably high proportion of development in the twentieth century, some of which has been harmful. 6. The CA is characterised by attractive terraces of stone or brick fronting onto the pavement. Windows typically have vertical proportions and the majority of these are sliding sashes. Timber is a highly dominant window material, and this extends Appeal Decision 6011198 2 even to more recent development. On the site visit I saw that whilst present in some twentieth century properties within its setting, uPVC windows are rare within the CA. This is reflected in the Northumberland Square Conservation Area Management Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (the CAMS) which sets out that ‘Fenestration is a key element in maintaining the character of the conservation area. Traditional windows should be retained and restored wherever they have been changed from this. uPVC is unacceptable in most properties of the age and style in this conservation area.’ 7. The CAMS was prepared to support the delivery of the High Streets Heritage Action Zone (HAZ) scheme for the CA. The HAZ scheme has led to recent physical improvements to the historic and built environment, and these are evident in the high-quality paving, street furniture and the exterior of the various historic buildings within the CA. These have led to a high-quality public realm and contribute positively to the CA. 8. Having regard to the above, the significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, derives from the high-quality architecture, the prevalence of terraces and the nature of the fenestration, typically comprising of timber windows. 9. The appeal relates to a flat within the appeal building, a terraced block of flats. This is a relatively recent development but has been constructed in a traditional style using traditional materials and is reflective of the nineteenth century terraces that characterise the CA. Its windows are a consistent mix of white painted timber casements and sliding sash windows. The windows of the appeal property are located on the first floor and include a casement window on a full height bay and a casement window in a turret addition to the corner of the building. 10. Although the block of flats is of relatively modern construction, its use of traditional materials, including timber windows and their consistent use across the floors of the building help to reinforce the significance of the CA in line with the aims of the CAMS. 11. The appeal proposal would involve the replacement of the existing single glazed timber casement windows with double glazed uPVC in a ‘woodgrain’ finish. The windows are described as ‘like-for-like’ in terms of ‘fenestration, style, location and size’. Whilst the proposed elevation drawings appear to show no change in the depth of the frames of the windows compared to the existing, my experience is that double glazing, such as the 28mm thick glazing proposed, requires more substantial frames than the reasonably narrow frames that currently exist. 12. I am provided with more detailed drawings showing the profiles of the windows and the glazing depth, but there are no comparable existing profile drawings which limits my ability to undertake a meaningful assessment. Moreover, whilst the proposed and existing drawings are entitled the same, the drawings appear to me to show more substantial frames to the individual opening casements than are present in the existing building. This is particularly evident when comparing the thickness of the frame to that of the casement in both the drawing and on the building itself and leads me to doubt the assertion that the existing and proposed elevations would be exactly the same. 13. Given the positive contribution that the consistency in the fenestration of the building makes to the CA, even a small change in casement thickness would stand out alongside the remaining timber framed casements across the other floors and Appeal Decision 6011198 3 flats within the building. Such a fragmentation in terms of the appearance and composition of the elevation would impact negatively on the character and appearance of the CA. 14. I am provided with little detail in terms of the appearance of the joints or construction of the windows, but uPVC windows typically fail to reproduce the joinery and craftsmanship that are present in the existing windows. The windows would outwardly appear as uPVC replacements and stand out alongside the timber windows in the existing building and across the rest of the CA which is characterised by a strong presence of timber windows. This would add to the fragmentation and the harm that I have set out above. 15. I am also mindful of the guidance contained within the CAMS, highlighting the importance of fenestration and that uPVC is unacceptable in properties of the age and style of the CA. Noting that the architectural style of the appeal building reinforces the character and appearance of the CA, the CAMS supports my above assessment. 16. Whilst I accept that the replacement in the windows of a single flat is a relatively small alteration, and that the harm to the CA would, overall, be low, it is these incremental changes to key features which contribute to and positively reinforce the character and appearance of a conservation area, that have potential to dilute and undermine an area's special interest. 17. On the site visit I saw that windows at a nearby building, Stephenson Court, had been replaced with uPVC. These appear to be very similar to those proposed as part of the scheme before me. Whilst I sympathise with the appellant in this regard, this building is located outside of the CA. Furthermore, whilst within its setting, it does not reflect the architecture or character of the CA in the manner of the appeal building. Moreover, I would note that evidence of existing harm to a conservation area is rarely justification for additional harm. 18. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. This would be contrary to the requirements of section 72(1) of the Act. As such, the proposal would cause harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. 19. When considering the impact of proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It makes clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of the degree of harm that would occur. 20. Framework Policy HE6 sets out that where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset, the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed. 21. The proposal would incorporate double-glazing. This would likely represent an improvement in terms of energy efficiency when compared to the existing single glazing. Such improvements carry substantial weight as set out at DM Policy CC2: 2, albeit being limited to a single flat rather than the whole building. I am also Appeal Decision 6011198 4 mindful that such improvements in energy efficiency could also arise from double glazed timber windows, that would likely be less harmful in heritage terms. 22. Whilst the appellant sets out that timber windows are approximately 80% more expensive than uPVC windows, it is unclear if the costs of repair of the existing windows has been investigated, or whether the provision of brushes and seals that can eliminate draughts has been considered. I note that the CAMS sets out that money can be wasted through replacing windows that only need minor repairs. 23. The appellant is seeking uPVC windows to avoid the need for scaffolding required for future painting, however, it appears that the mullions that divide the bay windows and potentially the render of the bay itself would also continue to need painting. 24. Overall, whilst I have given the improvements to energy efficiency substantial weight, this is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the low level of harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. 25. For the above reasons, the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and would be harmful to its significance. This would be contrary to the requirements of section 72(1) of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. The harmful impact would also be contrary to Policies S6.5, DM6.6 and DM6.1 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017) which together seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets through ensuring high-quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness. 26. There would also be conflict with the guidance contained within the CAMS and the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document (2018) which guides that within historic environments, materials should be high quality and reflect prominent and established locally used materials. Other Matters 27. Reference is made in the appellant’s submission to pre-application advice with the Council. However, my role is to assess the proposal before me and nevertheless, any pre-application advice received from the Council is not binding. 28. I have had regard to the letter of support from an occupier of another flat within the appeal building, however, support for a proposal is not necessarily an indicator of a lack of harm. Conclusion 29. For the reasons given, having considered the development plan as a whole, the requirements of the Act and the Framework, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Paul Martinson INSPECTOR