- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: E Fawcett
- Authority
- Pendle (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009979
- Application reference
- 25/0779/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Appeal against condition 3 of a permission for replacement windows and alteration of a door, which withholds permission for uPVC window or door frames at ground-floor level
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition 2021-2040 (2025) SP11, DM16, DM18, Conservation Area Design and Development Guidance SPD 2008
- Main issues
- whether the condition is reasonable and necessary
Summary
An appeal against a condition preventing uPVC frames in a ground-floor shopfront in the Barnoldswick Conservation Area was dismissed. uPVC would not replicate the slender timber shopfront that contributes to the area's commercial character, causing harm at the lower end of the spectrum. The benefits claimed did not depend on using uPVC, so they did not outweigh the harm under HE6, and the condition was reasonable and necessary.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶3).
- Harm: lower end, HE6(3). "Based on the information before me, the magnitude of this harm would be towards the lower end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, having regard to my statutory duty, I attach considerable importance and weight to that harm" (DL ¶9).
- HE4(2) and HE6(4) stated. "Policy HE4 of the Framework sets out that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should have a clear and convincing justification. Policy HE6 goes on to state that the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal" (DL ¶10).
- Benefits not dependent on the harm. "these improvements would not be dependent on the use of uPVC for the ground-floor shopfront and could equally be achieved through the use of a more appropriate alternative material" (DL ¶11).
- HE6(4): FAIL. "the public benefits of the use of uPVC for the shopfront would not outweigh the considerable importance and weight that should be attached to the identified harm to the CA and the substantial weight that should be given to its conservation, irrespective of the level of harm" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
HE6(4) only: lower-end harm, given considerable importance and weight, against benefits each given limited weight (DL ¶11–13). No S4 balance.
What made the difference
The benefits (removing plastic cladding upstairs, reusing a door, supporting the business) could all be had with timber at street level. Evidence that timber was not viable, which was asserted but not produced, might have added weight but would not have removed the harm.
Transferable points
- HE6(1) and HE6(3) stated together and correctly: considerable importance and weight to the harm, substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of the level of harm" (DL ¶13).
- Public benefits that do not depend on the harmful element, and could be achieved with a more appropriate material, carry limited weight in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶11–12).
- Other unauthorised or immune uPVC in a conservation area does not justify more (DL ¶16).
- An unevidenced claim that the cost of an alternative material would jeopardise a business does not outweigh heritage harm (DL ¶17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | uPVC shop window and door would harm the Barnoldswick Conservation Area, "towards the lower end of the spectrum"; substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of the level of harm" (DL 9, 13) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | considerable importance and weight attached to the harm, by reference to the section 72 duty (DL 9, 13) |
| HE6(4) | fail | public benefits limited and not dependent on using uPVC; they do not outweigh the harm; cited as "Policy HE6" (DL 10-13) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | clear and convincing justification stated as the test; other uPVC in the area and cost do not justify the harm (DL 10, 16-17) |
Key facts
- Section 78 appeal against a condition on a permission granted 26 March 2026 (header)
- Timber shopfront is not original, but its slender framing reflects the traditional shopfronts of Rainhall Road (DL 6)
- SPD says uPVC for any element of a shopfront will not be appropriate (DL 7)
- uPVC already approved at first-floor level, where it replaces white plastic cladding and is a small improvement (DL 11, 15)
- uPVC at the doctor's surgery opposite was likely immune from enforcement and showed the material's limits (DL 16)
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)
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.