For the installation of replacement uPVC windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 September 2026 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013545 8 Queens Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RF • 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 Andrew Rutter against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref. is 25/00705/RET. • The development proposed is for the installation of replacement uPVC windows. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of uPVC windows at 8 Queens Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 7RF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/00705/RET, with no conditions. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) was issued on 17 August 2026 which replaced the previous version published in December 2024, and all other iterations. Paragraph 1 of Policy S4, as set out therein, stipulates that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. 3. Policy HE4 of the Framework seeks to secure the conservation of heritage assets which identifies them as an irreplaceable resource which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this it states that development proposals which would affect the significance of heritage assets should, amongst other things, maintain or secure a use consistent with their conservation and avoid (or if that is not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and instead conserve their significance. 4. Framework Policy HE6 stipulates that when considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that where a development proposal would harm its significance, this should we weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. In addition, Framework Policy HE9 is specifically aimed at Conservation Areas which, inter alia, requires proposals to retain and conserve buildings and other features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area Appeal Decision 6013545 2 where possible, recognising that not all elements of the Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. 5. I consider that this new national policy does not affect the substance of the proposal before me and therefore it was not necessary to refer back to the parties. 6. In addition, I note that the appellant set out a detailed description as to why they replaced the windows, however I consider that the Council’s description as set out within their decision notice to be more succinct and therefore I have incorporated that within the description of development and the decision above, albeit omitting the reference to “retrospective” because that in itself does not constitute development. However, I confirm that the replacement windows were in situ at the time of my site visit and I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 7. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brookvale West Conservation Area. Reasons 8. The site is situated within a pleasant, terraced residential street; the properties within which are generally well kept. However, a significant proportion no longer have their original timber sash windows and in the main have been replaced by uPVC and aluminium units of various styles. 9. Consequently, a rather eclectic mix of fenestration makes up this part of the Conservation Area notwithstanding that at the time of its designation in 1999 the associated Conservation Area Appraisal for Brookvale West (CAA) highlighted that George Street was constructed within the late Victorian era with the appeal site like the majority of other dwellings within the Conservation Area being identified as a building of group value. The CAA highlights that joinery was of particular importance in the Conservation Area at the time it was produced. It states that although there had been some replacement features, enough remained to make the area special. Whilst the CAA is not specific on the proportion of dwellings that retained their original timber sash windows at that time, it is unfortunate that these now appear to be in the minority. 10. However, it is common ground between the parties that the windows that were replaced were not the original sash windows and it is clear from the photographic evidence before me that the subsequent timber replacements would likely have been constructed of fast-growing softwood which rotted to a point that they were beyond economic repair. 11. I also noted a number of timber windows within the street to also being in relatively poor condition and it seems that this has been a common theme within Queens Road and the wider area. I acknowledge that “two wrongs don’t make a right”, however notwithstanding the use of uPVC, the replacement windows are of high quality and largely respect the design of their predecessors. 12. I am not in a position to dispute that the host dwelling is a non-designated heritage asset, but whilst I acknowledge that it falls within a number of view-points as set out within the CAA map, nonetheless I consider that these are not materially harmed by the proposal. Notwithstanding the change in materials, the replacement units are of a sympathetic design to the character of the host Appeal Decision 6013545 3 property and bearing in mind the appearance of the previous modern replacement timber windows, I also consider that the uPVC units in this instance take into account the provision of appropriately spaced glazing bars and horn detailing. On balance, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved. 13. I therefore find the scheme is not in conflict with Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 with the replacement windows having being of a condition which is no more harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area than the windows they replaced; and that the development would conserve the quality of the Borough’s Heritage Assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Conclusion and Conditions 14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 15. Due to the retrospective nature of the appeal it is not necessary to impose any conditions. C Tivey INSPECTOR