A listed building enforcement appeal in Bolton le Sands has failed after the owner of a Grade II building challenged both its inclusion on the statutory list and an order requiring traditional windows and doors to be reinstated. Inspector J M Tweddle dismissed the appeal and upheld Lancaster City Council’s notice.
The decision was issued on 12 November 2026 and concerns a mid-eighteenth-century property at Main Road, within the Bolton le Sands Conservation Area. Modern uPVC windows and doors had replaced timber sash windows, side casements and panelled doors without listed building consent. The notice allows 12 months for compliance.
This listed building enforcement case is unusually instructive because the appellant relied on four statutory grounds, including a challenge to the listing itself and an argument that the replacement work was urgently necessary. The Inspector considered the building’s historical significance, the effect of the alterations and the evidence required to establish an emergency exception.
Why listed building enforcement survived in Lancashire
The listed building enforcement notice was issued on 16 May 2024. It required the removal of two replacement front windows and their replacement with traditional six-over-six timber sliding sashes. It also required appropriately detailed timber side casements and replacement of the modern front and rear doors with timber panel doors, with specified materials and finishes.
The appellant pursued grounds (a), (b), (c) and (d) under section 39(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Ground (b) alleged that the stated contravention had not occurred, but the physical replacement works were not disputed. The Inspector treated the actual argument, that the works did not constitute a listed building contravention, under ground (c).
This distinction mattered. A disagreement over whether unauthorised works affect a listed building’s character is not the same as saying the works did not occur. For listed building enforcement, getting the correct statutory ground and the supporting evidence straight can shape the outcome before the heritage merits are assessed.
A challenge to the Grade II listing itself
Ground (a) argued that the building was not of special architectural or historic interest. Under section 41(6)(c), that amounted in effect to an application for the Secretary of State to remove the property from the statutory list. The relevant assessment point was immediately before the unauthorised works were carried out, not the date on which the enforcement notice was issued.
Numbers 60 and 62 Main Road were listed in November 1983. The Inspector identified them as a mid-eighteenth-century vernacular house and adjoining cottage, forming a linear stone range with sandstone dressings, a slate roof, characteristic window surrounds, copings, gutter brackets and prominent chimneys. The buildings occupy a conspicuous position in the conservation area.
Inscribed stone lintels recording the names James and Catharine Bibby and the construction date 1745 provided unusually direct evidence of the buildings’ origins. Changes in the property’s commercial or residential use did not remove its surviving historic fabric, traditional form or significance. The ground (a) challenge failed.
The practical point is that an older building’s historic value does not disappear because its uses have changed or some fabric has been altered. A challenge to the listing requires evidence addressing its special interest. An assertion that it once housed different activities does not, by itself, undermine designation.
Why the replacement windows were not like for like
Ground (c) turned on whether the replacement work affected the character of the listed building so as to require consent under section 7 of the 1990 Act. The Inspector explained that the statutory test was whether character was affected, not whether the alterations were independently judged harmful under an ordinary planning balance.
Photographs showed that the former front windows were timber sliding sashes with multiple panes, slender frames and traditional joinery. The side windows were timber casements, while the earlier doors also had traditional timber construction. Even if every component was not original to 1745, their materials and proportions contributed to the building’s architectural character.
The replacements used heavier modern uPVC frames and differently detailed doors. The Inspector wrote, The works cannot therefore reasonably be regarded as like-for-like replacements
. Their construction and appearance materially changed the building’s character, so listed building consent was required. None had been obtained, and ground (c) failed.
For anyone considering listed building enforcement, the difference between a visually similar product and a genuinely compatible replacement matters. Frame thickness, glazing pattern, opening method, material and joinery may all count. Planning Geek’s guidance on altering windows explains why window replacement is not automatically permitted simply because the opening stays the same.
The urgent works defence required three separate tests
Under ground (d), the owner argued that the works were urgently necessary for safety, health or preservation. The Inspector identified three cumulative conditions: urgent necessity, the impracticability of repair or temporary protection, and works limited to the minimum immediately necessary. Every condition had to be demonstrated.
The appellant reported windows that did not close properly, water ingress during poor weather, damp, mould and health concerns. The Inspector did not dismiss the possibility of genuine problems. What was missing was evidence that wholesale replacement was so urgent that an application for consent could not first be pursued.
Nor had the appellant shown why the windows and doors could not be repaired, adjusted or temporarily secured while consent was sought. The ability to source and install replacement units also sat uneasily with the claimed emergency. Ground (d) failed because the required evidence on urgency, alternatives and minimum intervention was insufficient.
That is a particularly useful lesson from this listed building enforcement appeal. A defect requiring attention is not automatically a legal justification for removing protected fabric immediately. Contemporaneous surveys, photographs, professional advice and a genuine record of considered repair options can be critical to explaining why a particular intervention was necessary.
Energy improvements did not change the outcome
The Inspector acknowledged that the replacement work might have improved the building’s energy efficiency. However, those benefits did not establish that the building was wrongly listed, that the alteration was outside the consent regime, or that the urgent works exemption had been satisfied. The appeal was dismissed on each substantive ground.
The decision does not mean that energy improvements can never be carried out to listed buildings. It means that lawful changes must respond to the protected character of the specific building and follow the appropriate consent route. Planning Geek’s listed building consent guide explains when formal approval is needed.
An owner facing listed building enforcement should also pay attention to compliance requirements. Here the authority specified traditional construction, glazing arrangement and paint finishes, rather than merely telling the owner to remove modern units. Whether equivalent solutions can be agreed is a separate practical question from whether this particular appeal succeeds.
What property owners can learn from this appeal
The most consequential feature of the listed building enforcement case is the separation of the legal arguments. Ground (a) tested the continued designation. Ground (c) tested whether the alterations affected protected character. Ground (d) tested the strict emergency justification. Each required different evidence, and failing on one did not answer the others.
Planning Geek’s listed building enforcement guidance explains the notice, appeal routes and the absence of the ordinary planning enforcement immunity period for unauthorised listed building works. Owners should identify the statutory deadline and obtain informed heritage advice before taking further action.
Inspector J M Tweddle dismissed appeal APP/A2335/F/24/3351675 on 12 November 2026, leaving Lancaster City Council’s listed building enforcement notice in force. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments