A Whittlesey developer won approval for a bungalow that Fenland planners claimed was “an unfortunate act of shoehorning” that would harm the town’s conservation area. The Planning Inspectorate allowed an appeal by MJW Property Services who can now build the bungalow to the rear of 8 Delph Street, Whittlesey.
However, in a separate appeal Mark White of MJW Property Services has been told replacement windows to the main house, which has undergone renovation, must be agreed in accordance with a condition imposed when permission was given.
And this despite a petition from neighbours arguing that the replacement windows are “brilliant”, improve the house enormously and one telling the inspector they look “amazing”.
First the good news for MJW Property Services was the decision by planning inspector R Gee to allow the bungalow which he said, “would not represent an incongruous layout and built form that would be visually harmful, or alien, to the site and the surrounding area”.
Fenland District Council, who refused the application, had claimed that “this type of development is considered to be an unfortunate act of shoehorning that impacts on the character, appearance and viability of the host dwelling which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset.
“It is also considered to harm the character of the Whittlesey Conservation Area”.
Mr Gee said he had noticed other properties nearby in similar back land positions, whereby properties are set back from the highway and accessed via an elongated driveway.
He said: “I recognise that some of the examples of adjacent back land developments lie outside of the conservation area boundary, albeit close to the appeal site. Nevertheless, other examples of back land development do lie within the confines of the conservation area.
“Whilst I do not know the circumstances of each case, such developments do now form part of the established character of the locality.”
Mr Gee also considered a further council objection which claimed that “there is significant harm anticipated in terms of overlooking from the proposed dwelling to private amenity space associated with No 6b Delph Street”.
But the inspector said he was “satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not have an overbearing impact upon the occupiers of No. 6b.
“Similarly, for these reasons the proposed dwelling would not result in a material loss of daylight or sunlight to the garden, or habitable room windows, of this neighbouring property.”
Mr Gee said Fenland Council had not included the impact of the proposed development upon historic mud walls within their reasons for refusal “and I have no reason to reach a different view in this regard.
“Be that as it may, the appellant is agreeable to a pre-commencement condition to protect the mud walls during construction”.
The developer’s agent, Matthew Taylor, told the Planning Inspectorate that the Whittlesey Mud Wall Group would be invited to the site to see how these can be preserved and maintained.
“The mud walls cannot be seen on the site currently as the site has been left for some time vacant,” he said.
“There is a vast amount of vegetation and overgrowth to the site. The mud wall doesn’t form part of the boundary of this application and is still within number 8.
“The new owner of number 8 is an experienced building contractor and wants to preserve the character of the building which he is renovating and under a separate application to Fenland District Council.”
In a separate appeal MJW Property Services has been told replacement windows to the main house, which has undergone renovation, must be agreed in accordance with an original planning agreement.
“Planning permission for a rear extension to existing dwelling involving the demolition of existing extension and other alterations including replacement of the front elevation windows included a condition for details of replacement windows to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority,” said Mr Gee.
“The reason for the condition is to safeguard the visual amenities of the area.”
He said that when he visited the house, “I noted that the windows in situ did not reflect the photographs submitted in evidence annotated ‘site photo before modernisation/application’.
“It is not for me as part of this appeal to consider whether the windows are acceptable.
“The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in order to protect or enhance the character or appearance of the Whittlesey Conservation Area (CA)”.
Mr Gee said the house is set within a residential area within the Whittlesey CA which covers the historic core of the rural market town and comprises a commercial centre and surrounding residential development.
“I observed a mix of different periods of buildings along the length of Delph Street, including many later 20th century properties,” he said.
“No 8 Delph Street is a two-storey double fronted villa. It retains its symmetry with 6 over 6 sash windows at first floor level. The property has early 19th century origins but has been altered, understood to be probably in the 1920’s with bay windows added. “The photographs submitted in evidence, indicate that these windows included decorative leaded glazing and slim framed sash windows. Due to its age and architectural details, the appeal property makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.
“As a building of historic interest within the CA the appeal property is regarded by the council as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).
“Across the CA it is noticeable that many original windows have been replaced by uPVC frames. These replacement frames with their uPVC material, often with different glazing frame proportions, appear in general to be visually disruptive to the character of the buildings.”
Mr Gee planning policies requires developments to protect and enhance any affected heritage assets and their settings.
“The planning application form indicates that the proposed windows would be uPVC in a style to match including glazing bars and mullions,” he said.
“Whilst some further details appear to have been discussed with the council’s conservation officer, such details are not before me.
“Accordingly, due to the lack of clarity to some elements of the replacement windows, in particular their profile, there is insufficient detail to determine if the replacement windows would reflect the character of the area.
“My attention has been drawn to examples in the locality of uPVC windows. I have not been provided with details as to why these buildings contain the use of uPVC, which may have been installed without consent, or potentially before designation of the CA.
“I note the Whittlesey Conservation Area Appraisal (March 2018), and Whittlesey Conservation Area Management Plan (March 2018) do not preclude the use of uPVC on non-listed buildings provided they replicate the profiles as much as possible and a foil finish.
“Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this appeal it is not for me to consider whether the windows are satisfactory.
“The adjacent property, No 10, is a Grade II listed building dated 1768. The significance of the listed building is derived in part from its age, surviving historic fabric and its relationship to the evolution of the settlement.
“Although there have been recent developments proximate to the listed building, nevertheless, the appeal property contributes to the street scene that is part of the setting of the listed building.
“In the absence of precise details, I cannot be satisfied that replacement windows would preserve the setting of the Grade II listed building.”
Mr Gee said the developers had asserted that the existing windows were rotten and decayed, or that the property has stood vacant for a considerable length of time is not disputed.
It had been suggested to him that the public benefits of the scheme would be that the proposed uPVC windows would be of an improved appearance than the existing windows and an improved environmental impact than single glazed windows.
“It is also stated that the installation of windows would have some economic benefits in the short-term employment of labourers,” he said.
“I note the support from local residents for the replacement windows. However, these matters are not determinative to the main issue in this appeal.
“Having regard to the context of the appeal property, as a NDHA located within a CA and adjacent to a Grade II listed building, the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in order to protect or enhance the character or appearance of the Whittlesey Conservation Area.
“The appeal is therefore dismissed.”
The condition in dispute stated that “notwithstanding the submitted details before any works to replace the windows commences details of the replacement windows (retaining the existing stone cills and proposed profiles of the new windows) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
“The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the
windows shall be retained in that form thereafter.
“The reason given for the condition is: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area in
accordance with Policy LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014)”.
