UPVC Windows ban is an open and shut case

A property owner who claimed that he was being ‘discriminated’ against when planners slapped an enforcement notice on a Wellington shop’s UPVC windows has lost his case at appeal.

Ian Marshall of Shifnal-based IM Property Ltd told a planning inspector that UPVC doors and windows are extensively present across the Wellington Conservation Area without Telford & Wrekin Council taking enforcement action against them.

Mr Marshall wrote: “I can’t pinpoint why myself and 7 Bell Street is being discriminated against in this way, but feel strongly that it is not in the best interests of the local community and business.”

Mr Marshall added that he was certain that 11 UPVC windows, one UPVC door and one UPVC dormer window were “appropriate” “due to the extensive use of similar materials in the immediate vicinity”.

He admitted that he is “inexperienced in navigating the planning system” but added: “I have to be honest and say that there seems to be a real absence of common sense.

“The barriers that I seem to have faced in my good intentions of developing a dilapidated building within a struggling market town have been immense.

“There has been little to no support from the local authority that claims to have the best interest of the town.

“Beautifying, or trying to, at the expense of local small business people, while accommodating bold and brash corporate names will do very little to uplift the place.”

Telford & Wrekin Council planners told inspector Felicity Thompson that it had responded to an enquiry about the alleged unauthorised replacement of sash windows with UPVC.

Enforcement officers carried out a site visit and ruled that the windows and doors had been installed without planning permission.

Officials added that the applicant could have replaced the UPVC with timber casements with sash windows.

Built heritage conservation officials had said the UPVC was “wholly unacceptable and this modern material and its crudely designed faux joinery creates a jarring visual within the street scene”.

The inspector decided in favour of the council and this week has told Mr Marshall that he has four months to comply. He also has the option of seeking a judicial review.

The inspector said that the main issue is whether the UPVC windows, door and dormer window preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wellington Conservation Area.

A management plan for the area notes that the “replacement of wooden sash windows with aluminium and UPVC frames and different window bars is noted as a problem”.

The inspector “observed at my visit other UPVC windows and doors, which it appears the council might have been able to control but have not done so for whatever reasons”.

But the inspector added that the “slow degradation” of the area by uncontrolled UPVC windows and doors does not justify granting planning permission.

The inspector added: “I acknowledge the investment the appellant has made in the property and the financial challenges which small businesses face.”

But the inspector ruled that whilst UPVC double-glazed windows may provide a more cost-effective way of making energy savings, there was no evidence that the previous windows were beyond repair.

“The UPVC windows have an engineered, shiny, and modern appearance which does not reflect nor respect the character of the previously existing traditional, painted timber windows, particularly in respect of their detailing and slim profiles and the patina associated with the grain of painted timber,” the inspector ruled.

And the inspector noted the “appellant’s misgivings about the council’s action” that “this and the alleged inequalities in the way action has been taken, have no bearing on the planning merits of the windows and door subject of the appeal”.