Three apartments at 20 Gladstone Street, Hartlepool

What was proposed

The application sought three apartments in an existing dwelling, retrospective dark grey uPVC windows and two Velux rooflights.

“It is understood from the HBC building control records for the property that a ‘regularisation application’ was completed in December 2025 in respect to both the retrospective window replacement and the conversion of the property to 3 apartments.”

“97 2.5 Windows to the front elevation (including those in the turret feature of the roofline), rear elevation (including those in the existing two storey offshoot) and side (east) elevation have been replaced with uPVC windows with top hung opening mechanisms in most cases. The windows, including the associated sills and lintels, are finished (or painted) in a dark grey colour.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a three-storey end terrace in a residential area, within the Headland Conservation Area and subject to an Article 4 Direction.

“98 2.12 The application is being considered at planning committee due to the number of objections received (more than 2). SITE CONTEXT 2.13 The application site relates to 20 Gladstone Street a three storey, end of terraced dwelling in a residential area within the Headland and Harbour ward of Hartlepool.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the windows and rear rooflight caused less than substantial heritage harm that public benefits did not outweigh.

“118 2.79 Cleveland Fire have confirmed they would make any comments on issues such as means of escape as part of the required Building Regulations application consultation. Other matters 2.80 With respect to objections/concerns regarding devaluation, these are not material planning consideration and therefore have not been considered.”

“119 1.In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that the installation of uPVC windows to the front, side and rear elevations (with the exception of the 2no. windows to the main rear/south elevation and the installation of the 1no. rooflight to the rear/south), cause less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset (Headland Conservation Area) by virtue of the design, detailing and use of inappropriate materials.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent addressed the committee for the applicant; the objector was absent and made no representation.

The decision

Planning permission was refused because inappropriate uPVC windows caused less than substantial harm to the Headland Conservation Area without sufficient public benefits.

“The Objector was not present at the meeting therefore no representation was given. In general discussion, a Member thanked the Agent for the history of the property and the information regarding other uPVC windows within the area, however, advised if uPVC continued to be installed, this area would lose its heritage. It was felt uPVC were not the only long-term resolution as wooden sash windows were available which were efficient in terms of heat retention.”

“In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that the installation of uPVC windows to the front, side and rear elevations (with the exception of the 2no. windows to the main rear/south elevation and the installation of the 1no. rooflight to the rear/south), cause less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset (Headland Conservation Area) by virtue of the design, detailing and use of inappropriate materials.”

Minutes