sash windows in conservation area
Discussion
Family member has a property in a conservation area which has wooden sash windows.
They have applied for planning permission to replace with upvc casement windows which as been refused
"The proposed windows, by reason of their material, would represent harm to the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal remains
contrary to policies S1, S2 and EN5 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 as well as
the Conservation Area Character Appraisal document."
The attached pics show the property - no 4 (blue door), no 2 next to it and the rest of the properties across the road, most of which have upvc casement windows, but none appear to have planning permission.
Any likelihood this could be successfully appealed and / or appoint a 3rd party who specialise in appeals ?
Thank you
They have applied for planning permission to replace with upvc casement windows which as been refused
"The proposed windows, by reason of their material, would represent harm to the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal remains
contrary to policies S1, S2 and EN5 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 as well as
the Conservation Area Character Appraisal document."
The attached pics show the property - no 4 (blue door), no 2 next to it and the rest of the properties across the road, most of which have upvc casement windows, but none appear to have planning permission.
Any likelihood this could be successfully appealed and / or appoint a 3rd party who specialise in appeals ?
Thank you
We have the same issue but we went with upvc sash - it is more expensive but not as much as you might think if you get a good local fitter. Technically our local conservation documentation seemed anally fixated on the material - it says it must not be UPVC in any way, regardless of the design, but we did it anyway given that about 40% in our road were casement and 40% upvc sash with the rest rotting wood.
I think most councils have better things to worry about, like going bankrupt, than worrying about plastic windows.
I think most councils have better things to worry about, like going bankrupt, than worrying about plastic windows.
Is it an article 4 conservation area out of interest?
I live in a non-article 4 CA and want to replace cheap rotting softwood casement windows with alu-clad tilt and turn.
The conservation officer has essentially confirmed that permitted development rights apply (by virtue of there being no article 4 directive) and quoted the “similar materials and appearance” condition which seems very ambiguous to me.
I am included to just crack on but it could get exceedingly expensive if somebody took exception.
I live in a non-article 4 CA and want to replace cheap rotting softwood casement windows with alu-clad tilt and turn.
The conservation officer has essentially confirmed that permitted development rights apply (by virtue of there being no article 4 directive) and quoted the “similar materials and appearance” condition which seems very ambiguous to me.
I am included to just crack on but it could get exceedingly expensive if somebody took exception.
theboss said:
The conservation officer has essentially confirmed that permitted development rights apply (by virtue of there being no article 4 directive) and quoted the “similar materials and appearance” condition which seems very ambiguous to me.
It may seem to be splitting hairs, but the actual wording in the legislation is that: 'the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse'.
IE. NOT that the materials themselves must be similar (wood replacing wood, or whatever); nor that the appearance (design) of the windows created from those materials must be similar.
It is generally recognised that unless there's an Article 4 Direction in place, replacement windows are acceptable even if they use different materials, though I agree that there is some ambiguity over what constitutes 'similar appearance' between, say, UPVC and white-painted wood.
We are in a conservation area and went with replacement double glazed sashes which were fitted into the original frames so retained all of the original features such as the internal shutters. Unless you look closely, or have avery keen eye, you would never know that they are replacements. As a bonus the cost was much lower than total replacement.
We live in a conservation area with a C4 directive. Lots of houses have UPVc double glazing, often not even sash windows. My understanding is that they were all installed before the conservation area came into effect and are effectively therefore exempt.
It would be interesting to know what will happen when they want to replace them!
It would be interesting to know what will happen when they want to replace them!
Mr_J said:
We live in a conservation area with a C4 directive. Lots of houses have UPVc double glazing, often not even sash windows. My understanding is that they were all installed before the conservation area came into effect and are effectively therefore exempt.
It would be interesting to know what will happen when they want to replace them!
Theyll have to go for wooden sash.It would be interesting to know what will happen when they want to replace them!
Im in the same position. My upvc windows at the front are from the 90s and will likely need replacing in 5 or so years. Ill probably get wooden sash windows sent over from poland but still dont expect much change from about 10 grand for the front of the house (Edwardian terrace 6.5m wide-2 big bay windows and a small single bedroom window). The back has fairly new upvc standard windows which were not all that expensive really.
If I used a local company for the front id imagine it would be twice that.
Equus said:
theboss said:
The conservation officer has essentially confirmed that permitted development rights apply (by virtue of there being no article 4 directive) and quoted the “similar materials and appearance” condition which seems very ambiguous to me.
It may seem to be splitting hairs, but the actual wording in the legislation is that: 'the materials used in any exterior work (other than materials used in the construction of a conservatory) must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse'.
IE. NOT that the materials themselves must be similar (wood replacing wood, or whatever); nor that the appearance (design) of the windows created from those materials must be similar.
It is generally recognised that unless there's an Article 4 Direction in place, replacement windows are acceptable even if they use different materials, though I agree that there is some ambiguity over what constitutes 'similar appearance' between, say, UPVC and white-painted wood.
Mark V GTD said:
Equus is there typo in the second paragraph of your post above - the word ‘nor’ should be ‘but’?
No, the wording was deliberate.Read the wording of the GPDO (which is what I was quoting from) very carefully: it says that the materials must be of similar appearance. Not the design that you create from those materials. That's why I put 'design' in brackets, though, to clarify: a change from white painted timber sash windows to white, UPVC casement windows would be difficult to enforce against, because the wording does not stipulate that the design must be the same. Neither does it stipulate that the materials must be the same. Only that the appearance of the materials must be similar.
It then hinges on arguments over the meaning of the word 'similar', of course.
Possibly the key thing to grasp here is that theboss' Conservation Officer and I are both saying that normal domestic PD rights still apply, even in a Conservation Area, unless there is a separate Article 4 in place.
In other words: if anyone tries to tell you that you need PP for a change to UPVC windows in a Conservation Area (Article 4's notwithstanding), then it would mean that you also need PP everywhere else. They cannot lawfully treat you any different.
Equus said:
Mark V GTD said:
Equus is there typo in the second paragraph of your post above - the word ‘nor’ should be ‘but’?
No, the wording was deliberate.Read the wording of the GPDO (which is what I was quoting from) very carefully: it says that the materials must be of similar appearance. Not the design that you create from those materials. That's why I put 'design' in brackets, though, to clarify: a change from white painted timber sash windows to white, UPVC casement windows would be difficult to enforce against, because the wording does not stipulate that the design must be the same. Neither does it stipulate that the materials must be the same. Only that the appearance of the materials must be similar.
It then hinges on arguments over the meaning of the word 'similar', of course.
Possibly the key thing to grasp here is that theboss' Conservation Officer and I are both saying that normal domestic PD rights still apply, even in a Conservation Area, unless there is a separate Article 4 in place.
In other words: if anyone tries to tell you that you need PP for a change to UPVC windows in a Conservation Area (Article 4's notwithstanding), then it would mean that you also need PP everywhere else. They cannot lawfully treat you any different.
Sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread with my own questioning. I hope your project goes to plan whichever way you go with it.
okgo said:
Why not buy new wooden ones? That’s what we have, they’re great. PVC look awful.
Cost.We replaced all the sashes in our Georgian house, retaining the original boxes, with high spec double glazing in wood. £18000.00.
Not the front and back door, nor the dormer window which is UPVC.
That was five years ago so to retain the warranty they must be repainted this year. Scaffolding included, the cost will be £9000.00
Heritage UVPC would have cost us £23000.00 initially and that would have been that.
And the UPVC would have had better insulating properties and would have worked without massive counterweights making them almost impossible to start moving.
rlw said:
okgo said:
Why not buy new wooden ones? That’s what we have, they’re great. PVC look awful.
Cost.We replaced all the sashes in our Georgian house, retaining the original boxes, with high spec double glazing in wood. £18000.00.
Not the front and back door, nor the dormer window which is UPVC.
That was five years ago so to retain the warranty they must be repainted this year. Scaffolding included, the cost will be £9000.00
Heritage UVPC would have cost us £23000.00 initially and that would have been that.
And the UPVC would have had better insulating properties and would have worked without massive counterweights making them almost impossible to start moving.
I could replace the bad ones and aim to get another 10 years out of the good ones, but I'd rather throw the maintenance spend into replacing them sooner.
I'll also get the benefits of much better thermal, acoustic and physical security. Every glazing unit in the building will contain laminated glass for example.
One successful break-in would destroy our peace of mind here, so it's a price worth paying.
Playing Devil's Advocate a little: This is probably a 'Conservation Area' for a reason.
I live in the middle of what I think was the first Conservation Area in England. I've renovated a Listed Building here - a small Georgian townhouse. I had to get planning permission even to clean the stone, let alone replace any of it. A method statement was required, and the masons were required to use only hand tools.
I did get permission to replace the single-glazed sash windows and front door which I was able to prove, with photographs, weren't the original ones when the property was listed (in the '60s) and got this permission extended to allow slimline double-glazing, on the basis that it was pretty much indistinguishable (at least as far as the overall street-scene went) to the non-original single-glazed sash windows.
Would uPVC have been cheaper? Easier to maintain? Of course it would. However, it would simply not have been in keeping, so it was never even a thought. When you buy in a Conservation Area, you probably should be aware that it comes with certain 'rules'. If you think other people have flouted them, by all means report to your local Planning office. Putting uPVC casement windows in place of wooden sash windows is going to detract from the street scene / aesthetics. It is a 'no' from me. I shudder when I walk around town and see the eyesores that some folk have gotten away with, and even though it cost me more money, I'm so glad I didn't try and join them.
So many people have stopped me and commented on the windows, wanting to know where they were made, etc. (A local joinery firm with its workshop about 1/2 mile away). Sorting the front of the building (stonework and windows / door) probably cost about £30k in total, but transformed what was probably the ugliest and uncared-for property on the street into a nice-looking one. uPVC windows just would have made it look 'council', sorry...
I live in the middle of what I think was the first Conservation Area in England. I've renovated a Listed Building here - a small Georgian townhouse. I had to get planning permission even to clean the stone, let alone replace any of it. A method statement was required, and the masons were required to use only hand tools.
I did get permission to replace the single-glazed sash windows and front door which I was able to prove, with photographs, weren't the original ones when the property was listed (in the '60s) and got this permission extended to allow slimline double-glazing, on the basis that it was pretty much indistinguishable (at least as far as the overall street-scene went) to the non-original single-glazed sash windows.
Would uPVC have been cheaper? Easier to maintain? Of course it would. However, it would simply not have been in keeping, so it was never even a thought. When you buy in a Conservation Area, you probably should be aware that it comes with certain 'rules'. If you think other people have flouted them, by all means report to your local Planning office. Putting uPVC casement windows in place of wooden sash windows is going to detract from the street scene / aesthetics. It is a 'no' from me. I shudder when I walk around town and see the eyesores that some folk have gotten away with, and even though it cost me more money, I'm so glad I didn't try and join them.
So many people have stopped me and commented on the windows, wanting to know where they were made, etc. (A local joinery firm with its workshop about 1/2 mile away). Sorting the front of the building (stonework and windows / door) probably cost about £30k in total, but transformed what was probably the ugliest and uncared-for property on the street into a nice-looking one. uPVC windows just would have made it look 'council', sorry...
okgo said:
Why not buy new wooden ones? That’s what we have, they’re great. PVC look awful.
It absolutely doesn't have to if you look for nicer profiles I've had hardwood sash installed before that because of the powdercoat/spray finish were mistaken for UPVC (which was mildly annoying given they cost around 4 times what we paid for the equivalent)If anyone does get upvc sash, I'd recommend getting 'oversize' frames if your fitter will allow, as big as you can fit in the reveal. This will cost more but you can then conceal as much of the frame as possible in the reveal and maximise the glazing section. We only 'discovered the possibility of this by accident after one was ordered incorrectly and we used it anyway at the back of the property and makes a huge difference in avoiding the 'cheap' look of massive frames compared to wood.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff