# Flat 3, 49 Madeira Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells (uPVC replacement windows)

- **Decision:** split, 3 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L McKay
- **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012775
- **Application reference:** 26/00832/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective replacement of two first-floor timber windows with uPVC double glazing in a flat in a conservation area
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, CC2(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2025 STR8, H11, EN1, EN4
- **Main issues:** conservation area character
- **Tags:** split-decision, energy-efficiency, cc2-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, substantially-outweighed

## Summary
Two first-floor timber windows in a Victorian villa flat in the Madeira Park and Warwick Park Conservation Area had been replaced with uPVC. The inspector issued a split decision: the visible front oriel window was dismissed, and the unseen rear window allowed. It is a useful counterpoint to PINS-6006240. CC2(2)'s "substantial weight" to energy efficiency is acknowledged but cut to "limited" where the saving is unquantified and could be had in a less harmful way.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties have provided comments on this change in policy and I have had regard to these" (DL ¶4).
- **Front window: HARM.** The uPVC frames "lack the recessed inner frame and projecting transom detail … This difference detracts from the appearance of the host building, and diminishes its contribution to the CA" (DL ¶12). "The degree of harm to the CA as a whole would be slight, however having regard to Policy HE6 of the Framework, any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16).
- **Energy efficiency: substantial weight in principle, limited in fact.** "improvements to energy efficiency help to deal with the impacts of climate change. This is therefore a public benefit and a matter which the Framework affords substantial weight" (DL ¶17). But "there is no information before me to quantify the energy and thermal efficiency improvements … it has not been demonstrated that equivalent improvements were not achievable through more sympathetic windows" (DL ¶18). Hence "only limited weight" (DL ¶19).
- **Rear window: NO HARM.** Not publicly visible and "seen together with the similarly designed rear door below", so allowed (DL ¶13, ¶15).

## Planning balance
An HE6 harm-versus-public-benefit balance: slight harm (considerable importance and weight) against energy efficiency (limited weight) and private security. "the combination of the public and private benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶19).

## What made the difference
Visibility, and the availability of a sympathetic alternative. The evidence of nearby double-glazed timber windows showed the benefit did not require the harm (DL ¶18). With quantified savings and a timber-look product, the CC2(2) weight might have held.

## Transferable points
- CC2(2) substantial weight is not automatic. It can be reduced to limited where the saving is unquantified or obtainable by less harmful means (DL ¶17-19).
- "Slight" harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight under HE6 (DL ¶16).
- Where parts are severable, split decisions can retain part of the energy benefit while refusing the harmful element (DL ¶15, ¶18).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** front oriel window: "slight" harm to the Madeira Park and Warwick Park CA from frame profile, trickle vents and lost transom detail; any harm is of considerable importance and weight (DL 12, 16)
- **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** energy efficiency is a public benefit the Framework gives substantial weight, reduced to limited because it is unquantified, achievable with sympathetic timber double glazing, and partly retained via the rear window (DL 17-19)
- **HE6: pass.** rear window not publicly visible and seen with similar openings - no harm, so allowed (DL 13, 15)

## Key facts
- Parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
- Other double-glazed timber windows seen nearby showed a less harmful alternative (DL 18)
- Split decision: front window dismissed, rear window allowed (DL 1-2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012775
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e6abe94-0949-458d-8033-36eea1ab8bfb

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012775.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.