Agenda item - BH2014/00294 - 39-40 King's Road, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Replacement of existing timber sash windows with UPVC sash windows on first, second, third and fourth floors.

(1)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was located in the Old Town Conservation Area and there had been a similar application allowed at appeal in 2001; however, this application sought the replacement of an increased number of windows. The considerations related to the visual impact on the conservation area and the street scene. Since the successful appeal in 2001 both local and national policy had been changed, and the proposal was now considered contrary to policy which outlined that replacement windows must match those existing. Whilst the proposed design would broadly match the use of UPVC standard double glazed unit would give a harder appearance. It was considered that these differences would harm both the appearance and of the historic building and the conservation area.

Public Speakers(s) and Questions

(2)             Mr Simon Bareham supported, by Mr David Moyle, spoke in support of the application in their capacity as the agent and applicant respectively. Mr Bareham stated that the application sought the replacement of the failing timber windows that had been damaged by water penetration. There was ‘surprise’ at the recommendation to refuse the application given the appeal decision to grant a similar application in 2001; it was also suggested that the Council’s approach was not reasonable as it was believed they were not in possession of a copy of the 2001 appeal decision. The response from the Heritage Team was not considered consistent as the application proposed the same features that had been approved in the 2001 appeal, and the comments also referenced dormer windows that did not form part of the application. Residents had clearly stated their desire for better water protection and a higher standard of heat retention. The proposed details evidenced that they could be integrated within the conservation area.

(3)             Councillor Cox asked the applicant why they felt timber framed windows could not be used at this location given the Officer recommendation. In response Mr Kemp explained that the issue primarily related to maintenance as he had been unable to source a paint that could withstand the weather conditions for more than 1 year and prevent water penetration. Given the options that had already been tried it was felt UPVC windows were the only appropriate way forward.

(4)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Kemp that the proposed windows had details that related to the current proportions of the existing timber windows. The majority of the timber framed windows had been replaced or renovated approximately eight years ago and many of these had rotted within this time; it was felt the only option was to replace with UPVC windows.

(5)             Mr Kemp confirmed to Councillor C. Theobald that the windows also had secondary double glazing.

(6)             The Chair asked if the applicant had sought advice from the Heritage Team given that were large conservation areas in the city that had timber framed windows on similar seafront locations. The applicant explained that he had taken advice, but felt that the particular exposed corner position of the building made the situation worse, and there were neighbouring properties with UPVC windows.

Question(s) for Officers

(7)             The Area Planning Manager noted for the Committee that there were many other similar seafront locations in the city which were able to maintain their timber fronted sashes.

(8)             In response to Councillor Cox it was explained that since the successful 2001 appeal both local and national policy had moved on and there was very clear guidance in SPD 9 that discussed the replacement of timber framed windows and Officers were placing significant weight on this policy.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)             Councillor Davey noted a similar retrospective application that the Committee had refused in Clifton Street; he stated the policy was very clear on these matters and UPVC windows were not likely to be acceptable in conservation areas. He sympathised with the applicant, but felt that given the number of other timber framed windows in the city on seafront locations there no compelling reason to depart from policy.

(10)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that UPVC windows appeared bulky and did not give the same visual finish; she added that the building was on a very prominent part of the seafront and she felt the policy was right on these matters.

(11)          The Chair noted the prominence and local appreciation of the application site and felt that further discussion with the Heritage Team could find a suitable way forward to retain the timber framed windows.

(12)          Before the vote was taken the Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, noted that there had been no pre-application advice sought by the applicant; adding that this was a free service provided by the Local Planning Authority.

(13)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was carried on a vote of 10 in favour with 1 abstention.

189.7    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 proposed UPVC replacement windows would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host properties, street scene and the wider Old Town Conservation Area. The use of UPVC is an unsympathetic material to such an historic building which would result in the frames having a significantly bulkier appearance that would not match the existing joinery details to the building. As such the proposed alterations are contrary to HE6 within the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPD09: Architectural Features.

Informatives:

      i.           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.