sash windows in conservation area

[mike9009]

We had our windows replaced in conservation area (Article 4) with upvc sash.

The 'appearance' section is critical as most UPVC profiles have a wood grain effect - which should appease planning.

Ours was a nightmare getting through (for many reasons, but mainly our conservation officer being obtuse) and eventually I went to appeal to get the planning application rejection overturned. So, it is possible.

[Mark V GTD]

Slightly confused here - the 'similar appearance' aspect as discussed earlier in this thread is concerned with Permitted Development. If your house was on Article 4 land, removing Permitted Development rights and consequently required a planning application for replacement windows then that specific requirement doesn't come in to it. You must have, in any case, argued at appeal that the windows were sufficiently similar in appearance to the originals as to not cause harm?

[Equus]

Mark V GTD said:

If your house was on Article 4 land, removing Permitted Development rights and consequently required a planning application for replacement windows then that specific requirement doesn't come in to it.

Yes, if there's an Article 4 in place, all bets are off: the LPA can ask for whatever they think is necessary (within the scope of the Article 4*) not to undermine the character of the Conservation Area.




* though it should be remembered that Article 4's don't necessarily (or just) cover windows. They are also commonly used to control things like front boundary treatments, front hardstandings, porches, satellite dishes, etc. that also usually fall under Permitted Development.

I recently had one where the LPA themselves insisted that we needed PP for replacement windows because there was an Article 4 in place, but were strangely reticent about issuing its details to me when I requested them. When I eventually bullied/threatened them into giving me the information, it turned out that:

• the extent of the Article 4 only covered part of the Conservation area.
• the part of the CA it covered contained no built development and;
• the actual wording of the Article 4 was to withdraw agricultural PD rights to erect or extend new farm buiildings.

[Mark V GTD]

Very good point. I'm dealing with a London borough (RBK&C) that has a blanket Article 4 (removing PD rights for basements). You have to check against the Councils road by road list for the other A4's that cover specific design restrictions. Fortunately, the one I'm dealing with is only covered by the basement one so PD rights for extensions etc remain in place.