Agenda item

As new Chairman, GB reminded Members that they only need to speak if they disagree with the officer recommendation.  CL explained voting protocol, for the benefit of new Members, as follows:

 

-          if the officer recommendation is to permit, and a majority votes in support of this, the application is permitted; if a majority votes against the recommendation, the application is refused;

 

-          if the officer recommendation is to refuse, and a majority votes in support of this, the application is refused; if a majority votes against the recommendation, the application is permitted;

 

-          there is no requirement for a separate vote to refuse or permit in either of these cases;

 

-          if Members want to defer their decision, an express move to defer is required.

 

GB reminded everyone present that application 13/02174/FUL 86 Cirencester Road has been deferred and will not be considered at this meeting.

 

 

 

Application Number:			14/00297/FUL
Location:	25 Bennington Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Replacement of existing shopfront and door with timber sliding sash window and timber entrance door
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Refuse
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		2	Update Report:		Officer comment on Cllr Walklett’s concerns

 

Introduction

MJC explained the background of the two applications at 25 Bennington Street, which are back at committee following deferral in April. 

 

The first application, for the removal of a shop front and replacement with a timber sash window and door, was deferred in April to enable the applicant to provide more evidence to justify the removal of the shop front.  MJC has had several constructive meetings with the applicant, to furnish Members with the additional evidence.  The applicant explained that suggested solutions as to how the shop front could be retained are unviable.  The recommendation remains to refuse, as officers don’t feel that the matter has been looked at in an exhaustive way, although the application before members tonight is better than the previous one, and includes more evidence.

 

Members will note from the blue update that Councillor Walklett is disappointed at the way these progressions have been discussed, but unfortunately cannot be at the meeting tonight.  If Members are minded to follow the officer recommendation and refuse, JW has asked that they consider a deferral instead to the he can address the Committee next month. 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Was under the impression that he and the officers were going to talk to address a compromise over what could be done, and also that enough information had been provided to iron out the details.  For the meeting today Cllr Ryder became aware application going back on Monday, but Cllr Walklett knew nothing about it then and talks with him never took place.  Regarding 25 Bennington Street, this was a house until the 1930s, and as no permission has ever been given for it to be classed as commercial premises, it still is a house.  Similar properties with shop fronts have been converted back into houses.  The cost and implications of saving the shop window are disproportionate and unaffordable.  Has been told that if this work is not done, the Council can move in and take the building over, but he and his family would like to see this matter addressed with a proper conclusion and the property becoming a house in the street scene.  Notes other houses in the street have up-and-over doors, uPVC windows opening onto the streets.  Will make sure the new windows will be up to specification – sliding sash windows made to a high standard of workmanship.  Has tried to do everything right.  Repeated that Cllr Walklett didn’t know about the meetings taking place until Tuesday.

 

 

Member debate:

BF:  having heard what Mr Burnett has said and read the blue update, thinks this application should be deferred.  The recommendation is still to refuse, but if Cllr Walklett can attend further discussions between the applicant and officers, there is still the chance of a resolution which is suitable to both sides.

 

CH:  has a couple of questions.  Notes that what is left of the original shop window is not balanced and doesn’t look quite right as part of it has already been taken out.  If the window on the left side was the same size as the others on either side, would that require structural alterations to put build up the wall?  This would seem a better way forward if possible, but if Members aren’t minded to do this and to agree that the shop front can go, has some difficulty with the proposal.  The windows in the houses on either side are bigger and off-set.  If the shop front goes, the house in question ought to have a window which looks the same as its two neighbours.

 

AM:  has looked at this application long and hard over a number of months and wonders how we have got to where we are today.  If the move to defer fails, will move to approve.  Has had enough of this application – the window may be of high merit and in a conservation area, but one-third of it has already been removed; uPVC windows are not ideal for Bennington Street, but would not be unique.  Agrees with CH – it would be a better application if the proposed window matched those in the neighbouring houses – but does not consider that CBC has a strong argument to turn this application down. 

 

AC:  agrees with AM.  The window has already been mutilated and is of little interest to anybody.  It is out of place and inappropriate to a residential property – no-one wants a window like that in a bedroom.  Will vote in support.

 

HM:  if the application is deferred, is it possible to get a structural engineer’s report to determine if there is any alternative solution?  If Members are minded to approve, is it worth removing the shop window carefully and keeping it in The Wilson or somewhere similar?

 

BF:  AM says CBC doesn’t have a strong case to refuse but should remember that this case has already been to appeal and turned down.  To ignore what a Planning Inspector has said could be dangerous.

 

PT:  HM has said what she was going to say – doesn’t see why the window cannot be removed and kept, with a note where it came from and what it looked like in situ, leaving Mr Burnett to complete the alterations to his residence.  Would not want this bedroom in her bedroom or living room.  Realises that KR will not be happy with this suggestion and have reasons why it would not be suitable.

 

SW:  echoes HM and CH.  Was originally in favour of keeping the shop front but this has already been altered, and we can only consider what it before us today.  Realises the option to install a window to match what is next door on both sides isn’t on the table before us but asks this could be dealt with under delegated powers.

 

DS:  is normally in favour of keeping and restoring buildings of historic interest but in this case, would favour a single window.  Appreciates this would mean the loss of another shop front in the street, but this saga needs resolving - would support replacing the shop front at 25 Bennington Street with a single timber-framed window.

 

MJC, in response:

-          to CH’s question about finding a different way of keeping part of the window, is not a structural engineer so cannot put any suggestions forward.  The idea of rebalancing the window in a different way raises the question of what officers are trying to preserve -  not a new shop front but the retention of what is there now;

-          it’s true that a section of the original shop front has already been removed – this was approved to enable access to the apartment upstairs, and there was never any question of rebalancing the window;

-          if Members give consent, officers would like some control over what window goes in – this would need to be good quality, with a suitably-sized aperture, and consistent with the street scene.  Officers could work with the applicant to achieve this;

-          to HM’s suggestion that the window could be moved to The Wilson, this is out of planning officers’ control, but removing the window without spoiling it would require careful thought, and a method statement for its removal and re-use.  This would need to be discussed with the applicant, with those discussions reported back to the Chair and Vice-Chair if Members are so minded.

 

KR, in response:

-          the officer report summarises all the issues well.  Members need to keep in mind current legislation, the fact that the property is in a conservation area, and the appeal inspector’s clear comments about the value of the shop front to the conservation area – it should be retained but altered to allow the conversion to two flats.  These points have played an important part in her interpretation of the current proposal.

 

PT:  has two questions.  Regarding the lintel above the shop window, could this be removed safely in order to return the shopfront to a residential dwelling, as other houses in the street do not have as lintel?  Also, if Members are minded to permit the application, will BF withdraw his move to defer?

 

MJC, in response:

-          is not a builder or a structural engineer, but does not think it would be difficult to remove the lintel – there are other examples of this having been done around the town.

 

BF:  does not want to withdraw his move to defer.  There are still technical issues which need to be settled, and no structural report to support the applicant’s comments.   One extra month will not make a lot of difference.

 

MB:  if a vote on a move to approve is lost, does this mean the application is refused?

 

CL, in response:

-          There has been an express move to defer; if this is lost, a Member will have to move to permit or refuse as the officer recommendation.  If a majority votes for a move to permit, permission is granted, if not permission is refused.

 

Vote taken on BF’s move to defer

4 in support

9 in objection

Motion lost

 

AM:  moves to permit.

 

SW:  MJC has suggested that onus will be with the applicant regarding the size and design of the window if the application is approved.

 

CL, in response:

-          suggests that the move should be to delegate approval, to allow conversations between officers and the applicant to take place, with final approval of condition wording agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

AM:  is proposing approval, with all relevant issues conditioned.  A delegated approval leaves the situation in limbo again.

 

MJC, in response:

-          Members would be voting to approve, leaving officers to resolve the issues and ultimately sign the application off with the Chair and Vice-Chair.  All conditions will be crafted before the decision is issued.

 

AM:  that was fine and would be acceptable

 

Vote on AM’s move to permit

9 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT

 

 

Application Number:			14/00298/FUL
Location:	25 Bennington Street, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Replacement sliding sash UPVC windows in first floor (front elevation) - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Refuse
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		1	Update Report:		Officer comment on Cllr Walklett’s concerns

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Thanked Members for their previous decision – will work with MJC and the borough council to make the place as they want it.  Is now seeking approval for the upstairs windows, which have been installed to a high standard, with bull-nose edges and set back with only half-an-inch of the frame showing.  Could make the bottom windows the same, make them look like wood, and do whatever is needed to make the building look right.  Notes that other UPVC windows in the street look bulky and open outwards, which is surprising as they should be sliding sash windows.  The windows he has installed are of high quality and look right in the street scene.

 

 

Member debate:

AM:  refers Members to his earlier comments.  Is in favour of supporting this application, as what is installed is no different from any other windows in the street.

 

AC:  agrees.  These windows are the same as others and fit in well.  Cannot see any reason to change them.

 

PT:  moves to approve.

 

SW:  doesn’t agree with AM, in that these windows don’t look like others in the street – they look more like traditional sash windows and it’s only possible to tell that they are UPVC when up close.  Would go with an approval.

 

MJC, in response:

-          would just make the point that Members have approved the previous application for a timber sliding sash window downstairs and are now voting on UPVC windows upstairs in the same building.  Members should be aware and bear this in mind.

 

KS:  hasn’t seen the windows, but thinks they should be the same – either all wood or all UPVC – as it wouldn’t be right to have different windows top and bottom.  This is a conservation area, and it would not look good on CBC.  Planners ask people to jump through hoops when working on buildings in conservation areas and need to be consistent here.  The previous application for a timber window has been approved; the upstairs windows look nice too, but the two sets of windows should be matching.  We cannot allow two different types of window on one building – otherwise, what is the point of having a conservation area?

 

CH:  as a carpenter, would prefer to see wood windows in these circumstances, but looking down this street, which he knows well, notes that these UPVC windows look good.  We have to be pragmatic here.  There are some ghastly windows along the street, but to insist that one is all-timber is a strange decision.  Doesn’t like UPVC windows but some are better that others and these are OK.

 

KR, in response:

-          it is worth remembering that the original application was for the conversion of a part commercial, part residential building into two flats, and one of the conditions was that windows should be timber.  The applicant chose to ignore this and install UPVC, which is why this application is here now.  In a conservation area, we need to consider the heritage of the area, and shouldn’t forget that these are unauthorised UPVC windows.

 

DS:  referring to the previous comment, wants to see authentic windows, rather than a mish-mash of UPVC upstairs and timber downstairs. If the UPVC windows are refused today, suggests delegating the decision for timber windows to avoid the need for the applicant to come back to committee.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the applicant already has permission for timber windows upstairs – this was a condition of the original planning application – and to revert to this would not need planning permission.

 

MB:  if the decision is delegated to the Chair and Vice-Chair, can this be made to include a change of materials for the downstairs window?

 

MJC, in response:

-          as these are two separate applications and each must be considered on its own merits – the two must not be blurred.  If permission for this application is refused, the applicant will have to consider how to progress from here.  The previous application cannot be reconsidered;

-          Members are being asked to consider whether or not the applicant should be allowed to retain the UPVC windows.  Officer recommendation is to refuse.

 

KS:  wasn’t at the previous meeting when these applications were discussed.  Why are there two applications for one house?  It would be easier to understand if treated holistically.

 

MJC, in response:

-          the applications are separate because that is how the applicant made them.  Officers cannot require an applicant to make one comprehensive application;

-          this was done in anticipation of two different decisions.  CBC cannot issue split decisions.  This is what has confused the issues.

 

Vote taken on PT’s move to permit

6 in support

7 in objection (including Chair’s casting vote)

1 abstention

REFUSE