- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Pearce
- Authority
- Tonbridge and Malling (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009847
- Application reference
- TM/25/01244/PA
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent to replace 1980s timber windows and doors with timber-effect uPVC in a curtilage-listed former stables of the Grade II Maltings I and II
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(3), HE6(4)
- Main issues
- special interest of listed building
Summary
Listed building consent to replace modern timber windows with timber-effect uPVC in a curtilage-listed former brewery stables at Hadlow. Removing the 1980s windows was harmless, but uPVC was an inappropriate material, causing a limited degree of harm. Energy efficiency was not evidenced against the existing double glazing, and security and maintenance were private benefits. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The revised Framework is a material consideration which should be taken into account from the day of publication" (DL ¶3).
- Material. "it is not possible to accurately reflect the textural qualities, natural variations and weathering characteristics of timber in a modern material" (DL ¶12).
- Degree of harm. "Consequently, there would be a limited degree of harm to the significance of the heritage asset" (DL ¶14).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the proposed windows and doors would enhance energy efficiency in comparison to the existing double-glazed windows. Moreover, the maintenance levels and security capabilities of the windows and doors are private benefits" (DL ¶16).
Planning balance
HE6(4): limited harm, with considerable importance and weight, against no evidenced public benefit.
What made the difference
The material itself. Even replacing non-historic windows, uPVC was held harmful, and the energy benefit was not shown against the existing double glazing.
Transferable points
- Replacing non-historic windows can still harm significance through an inappropriate material (DL ¶11-14).
- The HE6(4) energy-efficiency benefit needs evidence of improvement over the existing (DL ¶16).
- Security and maintenance are private benefits (DL ¶16).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2) | harm | degree identified - limited harm; uPVC inappropriate even though the windows replaced are not historic (DL 12-14) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable importance and weight stated (DL 10, 15) |
| HE6(4) | fail | energy efficiency named in HE6(4) but no evidence of improvement over existing double glazing; security and low maintenance are private benefits (DL 15-16) |
Key facts
- Existing windows date from a 1980s conversion and have no historic value (DL 11)
- No precise drawings or cross-sections of the replacements (DL 13)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 3)
- LBC for uPVC at No 11 not comparable on the evidence (DL 17)
- Hadlow Conservation Area preserved (DL 20)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.