A SCHOOL’S plan to replace its energy inefficient windows amid a period of soaring energy bills has been blocked.

St Wilfrid C of E Primary School in Grappenhall applied to Warrington Borough Council to replace existing timber-framed, sash-style windows to the front of the building.

Plans state that the school is not a listed building, however it ‘provides a significant contribution to the appearance and local architecture’ of the Church Lane conservation area.

According to the school, the current frames are continuously in need of repair and constant weatherproof paint protection.

The windows to all other elevations of the building are formed in aluminium double-glazed units with a similar style.

Planning documents state: “As the proposals are replacements to closely match the existing, the proposals do not affect the conservation area.

“The proposed replacement windows match the existing and visually appear the same.

“The new uPVC windows will improve the current situation of replacement and repair and improve the current heat output footprint of the school.”

No residents objected to the plans, however Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council raised concerns regarding the use of UPVC windows replacing timber in a conservation area.

And this concern was shared by planning officers, who said: “The proposed replacement windows, by reason of the materials proposed (UPVC), would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the heritage asset, the Grappenhall Village conservation area.

“There would be no public benefits arising from the development which would outweigh this harm, as such the proposals would not comply with planning policy.

“The materials proposed would also be at odds with the established local character.”

A decision notice adds: “The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area, nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development.

“There were no conditions which could reasonably have been imposed which could have made the development acceptable, and it was therefore not possible to approve the application.”