Planning Appeal Dismissed Despite Existing uPVC Windows Being Evident on Hartlepool Street...

Albion Terrace on Hartlepool's Headland

Rules for One, Reality for Another: Planning Appeal Dismissed Despite Existing uPVC Windows being seen by Planning inspectors on the same street.

23rd December 2025

A Homeowner has lost their bid to overturn a council planning decision, despite the Inspector explicitly acknowledging that several neighbouring properties already had uPVC windows installed.

The planning appeal concerned retrospective listed building consent for replacement windows at a Grade II listed property within Hartlepool's Headland Area. While some elements of the works were accepted as appropriate, the Inspector ultimately refused consent for the replacement of rear windows with uPVC units, with the Inspector confirming that a number of the works carried out at the property were entirely acceptable. These included: Timber-framed, double-glazed sash windows installed on the front elevation, the Removal of render from the front elevation and restoration of original brickwork & Lime render applied to the rear of the building. Those works were found to preserve the character and special architectural interest of both the listed building and the conservation area. However, the appeal failed solely on the issue of the rear uPVC sash windows.

Inspector Acknowledges Other uPVC Windows have been fitted to nearby properties— But Discounts Them in his decision..

Crucially, the Inspector accepted that other properties along Albion Terrace in Hartlepool already had uPVC windows on their rear elevations and confirmed that some of these were visible from the rear lane. Despite this, the Inspector gave those examples no weight at all, on the basis that there was no record of any listed building consent for those alterations, with unauthorised works on properties elsewhere not sufficient to justify further harm to a listed building, with the Headland Conservation Area Character Appraisal explicitly identifying uPVC windows as conflicting with the area’s traditional architecture..

Cost and Energy Efficiency Arguments Rejected

Arguments relating to lower maintenance costs and improved thermal efficiency from the installation of the new windows were also dismissed, with the Inspector finding that no evidence had been produced comparing the cost of timber versus uPVC windows, as well as no manufacturer data demonstrating superior lifespan or insulation with no proof that uPVC windows performed better than the timber double-glazing which had already been fitted on the front elevation of the property.

As a result, the claimed benefits were considered 'minimal' and insufficient to outweigh the identified harm..

A Growing Issue for Homeowners Living in Conservation Areas

This decision highlights a recurring issue seemingly being faced by homeowners living in conservation areas and listed buildings in Hartlepool where past unauthorised alterations offer no protection or precedent, even where they are widespread and plainly visible.

In his decision report, The Inspector was clear that cumulative erosion of historic detail — even at the rear of properties — is a key concern, and that allowing one more example would further undermine the character of the area.

Despite the inspector recognising that uPVC windows already exist elsewhere on Albion Terrace, the he concluded that allowing further installations would cause incremental harm to both the listed building and the Headland Conservation Area. With no compelling public benefit identified.

The decision underlines the seemingly strict approach taken by both the Planning Inspectorate and Hartlepool Borough Council when it comes to heritage assets — regardless of inconsistencies already present on the ground, with critics claiming this further necessitates the need for the councils heritage policy to be updated to allow homeowners to use more modern materials, so long as they're in-keeping with the area and the historical asset.