| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The different appearance and character of contemporary uPVC windows is considered unsuitable due to the design and detailing of such windows not following traditional approaches. The loss of traditional timber windows as a result of this development would be harmful to the appearance of the building and this would subsequently harm the significance of the Conservation Area. As such, the application is contrary to adopted Core Strategy policy CS09 A which requires proposals to respect the surrounding context including historic characteristics - such as form and materials - and contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policy E5 and Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and contrary to the expectation of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, with respect to the harm caused to the historic environment. |
| 2. | Paragraph 200 from the NPPF requires that there should be clear and convincing justification for any harm to the significance of a heritage asset. In this instance, the justification is that the existing windows are damaged, unsightly and cold. these issues could be resolved through use of replacement timber windows, or alternative windows of more sympathetic and complementary appearance, or through repairs to the existing windows, or use of secondary glazing, for example. It is therefore considered that, in the absence of appropriate materials or adequate details in respect of the proposed replacement units, the development will create harm to the appearance of the building and the wider detrimental impact on the significance and character of the conservation area and the historic setting of the neighbouring listed buildings, which is not resolved nor outweighed by public benefit. |
| 3. | Paragraph 202 of the NPPF requires that any level of less than substantial harm to either or both of designated or undesignated heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, there would be a fairly high degree of less than substantial harm to both the designated Conservation Area and the undesignated building itself. It is not considered that this application presents a public benefit which outweighs the harm caused to the appearance of the building and the wider detrimental impact on the significance and character of the Conservation Area. |
| 4. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
