# The Old Stables, 12 Kenward Court, Hadlow (uPVC windows, listed building consent)

- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, listed-building, upvc-windows, windows, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, energy-efficiency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - limited harm; uPVC inappropriate even though the windows replaced are not historic (DL 12-14)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009847
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5bc3a9df-dd9d-4655-b198-f52c2ad10869

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009847.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.