KINGSTON AND NORTH KINGSTON NEIGHBOURHOOD

Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM DATE: 11 March 2020

CA14

RBK ref: 19/03239/FUL

Address: Flat 2 61 Maple Road Surbiton KT6 4AG Planning Officer: Andrew Forrest

Description of proposed works: Replacement of existing windows to front and rear with double glazed wooden-framed sash windows

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 11 March 2020 …… with …… 6 …… members present

Issued on 11 Mar 2020

1. Positive support		2. No objection
3. Objection	X	4. Objection unless revised as below
5. No comment/neutral		6. Lack of detail
7. Decision already issued

Reason for objection:

On the surface this is a well meaning and considered application which would appear to be the replacement of timber framed windows with something more environmentally friendly. However, more close consideration shows what is proposed will result in harm to the character and appearance of Cadogan Road Conservation Area.

As stated in the Conservation Area appraisal, the earliest properties in the area were constructed between 1854 and 1865. The appraisal notes that there were also a small number constructed after 1865 of of stock brick and two to three storeys which are are good examples of architecture for the period. 61 Maple Road is one of these properties and was complete by 1869 (it shows up on the 1869 OS Map)

In 1851 and 1857 two significant events occurred which changed the appearance of sash windows forever: the abolition of the window tax and the abolition of the duty on glass (Linda Hall, Period House Fixtures and Fittings, 1300-1900, 2005). As a result, larger panes of glass started to be used in windows and the 'sash horn' was invented to counteract the weight of the new glazing.

The lack of sash horns on a building shows that it must date from 1870 or earlier, by which time horns became commonplace. As a result, the appearance of the window in this instance is key to understanding the architectural and historic interest of the area.

The current application will result in harm to the Conservation Area as it will suggest that the building is from the late 19th century and betray the historic interest of the area. Either the design should be amended to remove the sash horns or the application refused. Should it be argued that there is an environmental benefit to the proposal, secondary glazing must be advocated on the basis that research by Glasgow Caledonian University and Historic Scotland shows that this has better thermal performance than double glazing (Paul Barker, Thermal Performance of Traditional Windows, 2008)

Should horns have been added elsewhere in the conservation area to similar properties, this should not be used as an argument for causing harm