An enforcement compliance period for a locally listed building in Leicester has been extended from four months to one year after an Inspector considered the cost of replacing modern windows and doors.
Inspector Stephen Hawkins varied Leicester City Council’s enforcement notice on 28 October 2026 in appeal APP/W2465/C/26/3377374. The dispute concerns Parkside House in Friday Street, a former late-Victorian council depot used by an arts organisation.
The distinction is important: the enforcement notice was upheld and the building work still has to be remedied. What changed was the time available to comply, not whether the replacement uPVC windows and doors had planning permission.
What the enforcement notice required
The council issued its notice on 12 January 2026 after traditional timber-framed windows and doors were replaced with modern uPVC and composite fittings at the two-storey building.
The notice required the removal of the uPVC windows and reinstatement of timber alternatives with specified designs. Some were to resemble sliding sash casement windows with lamb’s tongue horn details, while others were traditional stormproof opening windows.
It also called for two timber doors on a northern elevation to be reinstated, a composite porch door to be replaced with a timber door and brick infill above an entrance to be removed so a glazed fanlight could be restored.
The notice specified concealed ventilation and prohibited expanding foam in replacement installations. Those details matter because this was not simply an order to substitute wood for plastic. The council sought the reinstatement of features reflecting the building’s earlier appearance.
The building is locally listed for its architectural and historic interest. Local listing recognises heritage significance but does not itself create the same statutory consent regime as national listing. Planning Geek’s guide to locally listed buildings and other non-designated heritage assets explains the distinction.
Why the enforcement compliance period was challenged
The appellant, Cosmopolitan Arts, is a community interest company delivering local arts projects, including work celebrating cultural diversity. It sought additional time principally to secure funding for the specified reinstatement works.
The enforcement compliance period in the original notice was four months. In the appeal, the organisation suggested that obtaining outside financial support could involve significant uncertainty and that a period of up to 18 months might be needed.
The council accepted that more than four months would be warranted in this instance. The Inspector still had to decide what period was reasonable, balancing the council’s legitimate interest in remedying unauthorised work against the practical circumstances of the occupant.
Hawkins acknowledged public funding constraints and the risk of disrupting activities in a building delivering community benefits. However, he also observed that the appellant could have been seeking funding since the notice and appeal were issued.
The enforcement compliance period therefore was not simply extended to the length requested. It was assessed against the specific nature of the works, the opportunities already available to progress compliance and the consequences for the organisation.
Ground (g) changed the deadline, not the planning merits
This was an appeal under ground (g) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ground (g) addresses whether the time specified for complying with an enforcement notice falls short of what ought reasonably to be allowed.
The appellant had also raised ground (a), which would have involved seeking planning permission through the deemed application procedure. But the required fee was not paid within the permitted period, so the ground (a) appeal and deemed planning application lapsed.
That procedural point matters. Once the planning merits ground had lapsed, the Inspector was not deciding whether the altered windows and doors should receive retrospective permission. The notice remained operative and the remaining dispute was about time.
Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds explains the different statutory routes, including ground (a) for planning permission and ground (g) for additional compliance time.
Another practical consequence follows: someone who challenges only the enforcement compliance period cannot assume that the underlying allegations or restoration requirements are being reopened. Each appeal ground has its own function and evidence requirements.
Why one year was considered reasonable
The Inspector took account of how much time had passed since the January notice. An appeal designed only to secure additional compliance time could not treat the months during the appeal as though they had never existed.
Nevertheless, Hawkins recognised that sourcing public or charitable funding may be slow and uncertain, and that abrupt enforcement could affect the community activities taking place at Parkside House.
Explaining his decision, he said that the longer deadline would strike an appropriate balance between remedying the breach as soon as practicable whilst also avoiding imposing a disproportionate burden on the appellant.
Using the power in section 176(1)(b), he varied the notice by replacing the original four-month requirement with one year. He considered that this would not cause injustice to Leicester City Council.
The enforcement compliance period was therefore lengthened substantially, but the appeal did not remove any of the reinstatement obligations described in the notice. The Inspector upheld the notice as varied.
An appeal decided without an Inspector site visit
Hawkins determined the ground (g) issue on the written material without a site visit. He explained that the available information was sufficient to decide the reasonable length of time for carrying out remedial work.
That is unsurprising in the circumstances: the remaining question was not a detailed reassessment of architectural appearance, but a judgement about the compliance timetable and the appellant’s capacity to deliver the work.
The decision illustrates why practical evidence about funding, contractors, necessary works and effects on a building’s use can be particularly important for a ground (g) case. A general wish for more time is unlikely to be enough.
Planning Geek’s enforcement notice guidance covers the operation of notices and appeals. Where the notice itself needs formal adjustment, the separate section 173A guidance explains another statutory route available to councils in suitable cases.
What this Leicester decision does and does not establish
This enforcement compliance period decision offers a useful example of an Inspector balancing heritage-related reinstatement with the financial and community consequences of enforcing a notice immediately.
It does not establish a universal one-year period for heritage buildings, nor does it authorise the retention of uPVC or composite replacements at this site. Neither should the community-interest status of the occupant be treated as automatically decisive.
Owners facing an enforcement deadline should distinguish an appeal on planning merits from a ground (g) challenge to the time allowed. They should also keep evidence of the actual works and the realistic steps required to complete them.
Here, the notice survives with a longer deadline. The appropriate practical outcome is clear: the specified traditional features must still be reinstated, but the organisation has one year rather than four months to comply.
Appeal decision and sources
Read the official Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 3377374, determined by Inspector Stephen Hawkins on 28 October 2026. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments