Agenda item - BH2013/03492 - Top Floor Flat, 18 Clifton Street, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Replacement of existing timber single glazed windows with UPVC double glazed windows (Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Replacement of existing timber single glazed windows with UPVC double glazed windows (Retrospective).

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a three storey terrace property in the West Hill Conservation Area, and planning permission was sought retrospectively for the installation of UPVC windows. The main issues related to the impact of the windows on the street scene and the conservation area. There were other examples of UPVC windows in the street; however, these had no planning history, and the majority of windows in the area were of traditional style. Policy stated that timber windows should be protected as original features, and UPVC windows were unlikely to be permitted. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Morse spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that Members who attended the site visit would have seen the quality of the windows, and noted that their height above the street made then indistinguishable from other timber framed windows. He stated that the majority of residents he had spoken to were not of the view that the windows were harmful to the street scene, and the differences were only visible on close inspection. Mr Morse stated it had not been his intention to ‘flaunt’ the restrictions of the conservation area, but he had not been aware of them.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Jones it was stated by Mr Morse that he believed windows only had to replicate the style, and he had used the UPVC type for better heat efficiency in the flat.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Morse that he understood the property was located in a conservation area, but he had not understood the specific restrictions in relation to the windows. Mr Morse went on to explain that he had not sought advice in relation to the windows and he been assured they were acceptable by his builder.

Questions for Officers

(5)                   In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that double glazed timber sash windows could provide similarly levels of heat efficiency to the UPVC ones.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that there could be some instances where UPVC windows could be acceptable, such as on more modern buildings, but they were not usually acceptable on this type of traditional property.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was clarified that that the area had been designated as a conservation area in 1977 and extended in 1989 and 1995; the property also did not have permitted development rights to change the windows as it was a flat and the article 4 direction specifically targeted window alterations. It was also noted that the adopted policy and guidance contained in SPD9 Architectural Features had been through consultation and a decision to allow the windows would be contrary to the policy.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Wells stated that he had not noticed the difference with the windows when he attended the site visit, and there were other examples in the street of which were not harmful; with this in mind he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Hyde noted that the other similar alterations in the street were not permitted, and the article 4 was in place to protect the heritage of the area. If the Committee were minded to approve the application then they could risk setting a precedent. She added it was important the Committee adhere to policy otherwise they ran the risk of undermining it. She concluded that she would support the Officer recommendation.

(10)               Councillor C. Theobald stated that she agreed with Councillor Hyde and felt that the original features should be protected in line with policy; any contrary decision would send the wrong message, and for these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

(11)               Councillor Gilbey added that the difference with the UPVC windows was distinguishable and out of keeping.

(12)               Councillor Jones noted that he sympathised with the applicant, but that policy was clear on the matter.

(13)               Councillor Davey stated that the policy had been in place for some time, and stated that he would support the Officer recommendation.

(14)               Councillor Littman added that he sympathised with the applicant, and noted that the other examples on the street did not have proper planning permission or history.

(15)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the purpose of the conservation area was to preserve, and it was important the Committee defend the policy; with this in mind he would support the Officer recommendation.

(16)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was carried on a vote of 8 in favour with 2 against and 1 abstention.

141.2    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The UPVC windows, by virtue of their form and material finish incorporating the loss of original timber sash windows, represent a harmful alteration to the character and appearance of the building, terrace and wider Conservation Area, contrary to policies QD14 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, and the guidance in SPD09 & SPD12.

Informatives:

            ii.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

Note: Councillor Duncan was not present at the meeting.