Further to my previous post about Du Cane Court, and the effect that the proposed replacement of the original steel windows with aluminium, I found this article in Planning Magazine.
DC Casebook: Householder Development - Window loss blocked in conservation area
Householder development
Planning, 12 March 2010
The owner of a semi-detached house in west London has been refused permission to replace three Crittall metal windows with aluminium windows on the grounds that it would harm the character and appearance of a conservation area.
The inspector found an interesting mix of architectural styles on the estate, where much of the housing was influenced by the modern movement. A local design guide stated that a curved, streamlined shape, as exemplified by Crittall windows, was a feature of many houses. It identified the loss of traditional fenestration as a key factor in the deterioration of the area's special character.
An article 4 direction restricting permitted development rights reflected the council's strict policy stance on unsympathetic development. The inspector agreed that the proposed replacement windows could not replicate the distinctive curves. The proposal would be contrary to development plan policy requiring schemes to have regard to their historic and architectural context, he ruled.
The appellant complained that curved doubleglazed windows were not readily available. The inspector pointed to the design guide's advice that double glazing could be provided by secondary glazing and that modern double-glazed Crittall windows can be obtained as direct replacements.
DCS Number 100-066-469
Inspector Mike Fox; Written representations
The key phrase for me is "It identified the loss of traditional fenestration as a key factor in the deterioration of the area's special character."
Why is it that one local authority in London can take one view, and a neighbouring one take the complete opposite. Is preservation of our architectural heritage subject to post code lottery now?
No comments:
Post a Comment