Agenda item

CC:  MS has raised an important point as to whether or not it is appropriate that this application is discussed tonight.  Proposes hearing from the officer and applicant and then deciding whether there should be move to defer or not.

MJC:  this application for the retention of two UPVC windows concerns the same scheme as the previous one, and dates back to the 2011 application.  Permission was granted for timber windows but the applicant installed UPVC. This application seeks to retain them. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Referred again to the photographs he has provided which show several examples of UPVC windows in older properties in conservation areas.  With the emphasis on affordable living, these windows are energy-efficient and help reduce the cost of bills.  Their installation also helps to make it possible to convert dilapidated commercial buildings into affordable homes.  With regard to COU applications in conservation areas, The Town and Country Act says, in respect of shops in conservation areas, it is better to conserve than preserve.  There have been no comments from local residents.  MJC has said CBC has to comply with planning guidance, but UPVC is in keeping with the rest of the street scene and not detrimental - 80% of the windows in Bennington Street are UPVC.  Affordable housing is of paramount importance, and the windows installed are of high qualityand meet all the new requirements.  Has been told by a member of the Civic Society that it was not consulted and took no responsibility for 2007 report – this is very, very important. [Note:  Mr Burnett did not specify which report he was referring to here.]

Member debate:

MS:  in view of the previous discussion, moves to defer this application, so that the whole frontage of the building can be sorted out in one go, rather than piecemeal.

SW:  considers the two applications to be very separate.  Went on planning view, and felt that unless you looked extremely closely at the UPVC windows they look a lot like wooden sash windows.  They have been tastefully done and are not big and bulky like some UPVC windows – is happy for them to stay.  The design is OK and it is a little bit picky to insist the windows are timber.  If all the others in the street were made of timber, this would be a different matter, but it seems a little unfair to pick on this particular building, and pushing a bit too far to insist on the windows being changed.

AC:  agrees with SW.  There is a mishmash of windows along the street, and these tick the right boxes – conserve heat, reduce draughts.  Whatever is eventually decided for the ground floor, considers these upper windows to be OK.

HM:  we need to think about the building as a whole.  If we agree to UPVC upstairs, this will prejudice what is done downstairs.  If one application is deferred, the other should be too.

BF:  agrees with HM.  Wooden windows were stipulated in the planning permission and accepted by the applicant at the time, and he should therefore work to it – cannot see any argument here.  As for the higher cost of timber windows, the applicant knew this at the time he accepted the planning consent.

PT:  is torn here – unless we are prepared to do something about the unauthorised UPVC windows in the street and elsewhere in the town, we are on sticky ground if saying no to these.

MJC, in response:

-          to PT, the blue update makes it clear that the enforcement team has been notified of the unauthorised windows highlighted by Mr Burnett.  These photos were the first the enforcement officers knew of these breaches – it is impossible for them to keep track of all UPVC windows in the town – but as soon as they are made aware, they will investigate;

-          HM’s point has some merit.  Members need to consider the two applications – one to insert a timber window, the other to retain two UPVC ones – and aim for consistency.  As the previous application has been deferred, there is some merit in deferring this one too.

PT:  if people are served with enforcement notices regarding unauthorised windows, would like to know the outcome.  Are all the other houses with UPVC windows in this street going to be served with notices?

MJC, in response:

-          the existing UPVC windows in Bennington Street have been installed out of the Council’s control, but the applicant knew about the requirements when he made the original application in 2011.  Policy hasn’t changed since then, and recommends therefore that we stick to our guns – it would be wrong to say that Bennington Street is perfect , but the local authority doesn’t have control over all alterations.

Vote on MS’s move to defer

10 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

DEFER