Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer, Claire Donnelly, presented the report, which related to the replacement of three lost windows and stable doors, a lost floor and front door at Hampton House, Shurdington Road, Cheltenham. It was a Grade 2 listed building and was before the Committee because the applicant was a member of the Council. The Officer recommendation was to refuse.

The Interim Head of Planning, Andy Robbins, added that there were aspects of the application which Officers had no issue with, including the reintroduction of the stable doors and the implementation of the front door. They also had no objection in principle to the three windows, but were not happy with the form of glazing proposed. The applicant proposed double-glazing within historic openings, but the Conservation Officer’s view was that this would require wider profile timber work and have different reflective qualities. In a building of this period, a single-glazed design would avoid causing this issue.

Speaking in favour of the application, Cllr Horwood thanked the Head of Planning for his contribution. He emphasised that while the building was not accommodation, it was used for storage and as a workshop and as such, he was often in there for hours on end. Some councils were now permitting double-glazing on listed buildings. He pointed out that the building was not part of the house that had the listed status, but was added much later and only had the status because it was within its boundaries. It was only visible to a couple of neighbours, for whom the impact would be minimal. Secondly, planning guidance balanced merits against harm to heritage assets. This did not apply in this case as no harm was being done. The original windows had been gone for over 50 years and were covered with wood or plastic. Replacing them with quality windows would be a huge improvement. He concluded that the recommendation to refuse was not necessary, sensible or desirable, and that the application would make the building both greener and more beautiful.

In response to Member questions, the following responses were given:

• It was not possible to say exactly when the building was built, nor exactly how its original windows looked, but it was clearly of some age.

The Chair moved to the debate and Members made the following comments:

• There was a clear environmental reason to allow the double glazed windows, to aid insulation and reduce heat loss.
• Double-glazing was now the norm, and to require single glazing would be a step backwards.
• The proposed changes would have minimal impact, and the reasons to refuse in the report were unduly harsh.
• The building was not of any particular significanc and was not exactly attracting visitors.
• Conservation concerns needed to be balanced with environmental concerns.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to refuse.

FOR : 0
AGAINST : 9
ABSTAIN : 0

The Chair moved that the application be approved, subject to conditions on materials which the Planning Officers would oversee. The Head of Planning advised wording this as ‘and other such design details as required’.

FOR : 9
AGAINST : 0
ABSTAIN : 0

GRANTED unanimously