Wigston window enforcement has survived an appeal after an Inspector upheld a requirement to replace unauthorised uPVC windows with timber frames at a commercial building in a conservation area. The decision, issued on 2 November 2026, removes one uncertain instruction from the notice but leaves the main restoration requirements intact.
The premises are at The Elms, Bushloe End, Wigston, within the All Saints Conservation Area and near listed buildings. Oadby and Wigston Borough Council served an enforcement notice on 18 December 2025 requiring the removal of uPVC windows and the installation of timber replacements matching the earlier windows.
The Wigston window enforcement decision matters beyond this particular building. It shows how an Inspector can correct a defective compliance step without quashing the notice, and why asking for extra time requires evidence rather than an assertion that specialist work will be difficult.
Why Wigston window enforcement was upheld
The council’s notice sought four things: removal of the uPVC windows, installation of timber windows replicating the original design and glazing pattern, written approval of the replacement specification before fitting, and removal of waste materials. It set a six-month compliance period. The appellant, Jignesh Poojara, challenged that period under ground (g) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
That narrow ground did not invite the Inspector to decide whether the windows should receive planning permission or whether a different design might be acceptable. The issue was whether six months was a reasonable period in which to carry out the works required by the notice. The planning merits of replacing the timber windows with uPVC were not before the Inspector.
One instruction was too uncertain to enforce
Inspector Stephen Hawkins identified a separate flaw before dealing with the time allowed. The notice told the owner to obtain the council’s written approval for the specification of the timber replacement windows before installing them. Of that instruction, the decision says This lacks sufficient certainty
, because the notice itself did not explain clearly enough what had to be done to comply.
The Inspector therefore used section 176(1)(b) of the 1990 Act to delete the written-approval step and renumber the remaining requirement. The other steps were sufficiently precise. The owner still had to remove the uPVC frames, replace them with timber frames that replicated the previous design, materials, form and glazing pattern, and clear away the resulting waste.
Crucially, the Wigston window enforcement notice was not quashed because one instruction was defective. The Inspector found that the remaining requirements were capable of restoring the land to its former condition and that deleting the uncertain step caused no injustice to either party. A notice can be varied without losing its principal effect.
Why the six-month compliance period stood
The appellant wanted a year to carry out the window replacement programme rather than six months. The Inspector considered the tasks involved: obtaining drawings and specifications, engaging a suitably qualified joiner to make the new frames, and completing installation. The Inspector regarded those as reasonably straightforward for an experienced joinery firm and saw little firm evidence that they would take longer than six months.
The Inspector also noted that the appeal had proceeded only on ground (g). The appellant therefore could not reasonably expect the notice to be quashed in that appeal and should have anticipated that remedial work would be necessary. The appeal process had already delayed the date on which the notice would take effect.
For the Wigston window enforcement appeal, the proposed extension would have prolonged an established breach without a demonstrated practical need. The Inspector concluded that six months struck a reasonable balance between remedying the position promptly and avoiding a disproportionate burden on the owner.
The conservation area context
The decision records that the commercial premises lie within the All Saints Conservation Area, close to listed buildings. That is the context for the requirement to restore the earlier form of window, but the appeal was not a fresh assessment of the conservation merits. The decision does not say that the building itself is listed, and those distinctions should not be blurred.
Window replacements can engage different controls depending on the building, its planning history, any applicable permitted development rights and the conservation area designation. Owners should establish exactly what was authorised before treating modern materials as a routine like-for-like replacement. The purpose of this appeal was to assess the notice’s requirements and deadline, not to establish a general prohibition on uPVC windows in conservation areas.
What the appeal grounds actually allowed
Ground (g) under section 174(2) concerns the period allowed to comply with an enforcement notice. It does not reopen the planning merits, which are considered under ground (a) where available. Our guide to enforcement appeal grounds explains the distinct purposes of the seven grounds and the evidence each requires.
The Wigston window enforcement decision is also a reminder that notice validity and a ground (g) challenge can produce different results in one appeal. The Inspector corrected the ambiguous written-approval requirement while rejecting the request to extend the deadline. The legal defect did not provide an automatic route to keeping the windows.
What owners and councils can learn
For councils, the wording of an enforcement notice must tell the recipient precisely what action is required. Requiring further approval of unspecified details creates a risk that the owner cannot know from the notice alone how to comply. That problem may be correctable, but it is better avoided when drafting the notice.
For owners, a request for additional time should be supported with a credible programme, contractor correspondence, manufacturing lead times and any genuine access or conservation constraints. A general statement that specialist joinery is needed may carry little weight. The Inspector’s assessment was expressly tied to the evidence in this case, rather than imposing a universal six-month rule for heritage windows.
The Wigston window enforcement decision also shows the risk of treating a procedural correction as a substantive win. The requirement to remove the uPVC windows remains and the six-month period was upheld. Anyone affected by a similar notice should check its actual wording, the appeal grounds available and the evidence needed before deciding how to respond.
Inspector’s decision and sources
Inspector Stephen Hawkins issued the decision on 2 November 2026 in appeal APP/L2440/C/26/3377425, concerning The Elms, Bushloe End, Wigston. The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record provides the primary decision. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The brief quotation above is from the Inspector’s decision, under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
0 Comments