Agenda item - BH2014/03103 - 88 Waldegrave Road, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Replacement of existing timber sash windows with UPVC sash windows to the front elevation.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Replacement of existing timber sash windows with UPVC sash windows to the front elevation.

(1)             The Area Planning Manager gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The site was located in the Preston Park Conservation Area where there were restrictions to changes at the front of properties, and much of the road had retained the original sash windows. The application sought to replace the windows with UPVC windows, and the main considerations related to the appearance of the windows and the impact on both the host building and the wider conservation area. Whilst there were examples of UPVC windows in the street these had no planning history, and the timber sash windows should be protected. Policy stated that within conservation areas such applications were likely to be refused. Attention was also drawn to a recent refusal of a similar scheme on Clifton Street by the Committee earlier in the year which had also been upheld at appeal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Mr Martin Szczerbicki spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as the agent. He stated that the applicant was extremely respectful of planning policy, and the proposed UPVC windows would be indistinguishable from sash windows – as such they were in compliance with the NPPF as the authority would need to prove they would cause material harm. It was felt that the strictness of the policy should only be applied to listed buildings and was disproportionate for buildings in conservation areas. The UPVC windows would reduce energy bills and maintenance costs for the occupiers, and the Committee were invited to approve the application.

(3)             In response to Councillor Davey the speaker confirmed that the works had not yet been undertaken.

(4)             In response to some of the points raised by the speaker the Area Planning Manager clarified that the authority had evidence to show that the thermal quality of timber framed windows was as good as UPVC windows. The guidance was not applying that which would be used for listed properties, but policy for conservations areas. The Heritage Team had also considered the proposed windows and noted that the top and meeting railings were set further forward which had the visual effect of increasing the depth of the meeting rails. The use of different materials also had a different light reflecting quality and gave a different finish.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)             Councillor Davey noted the decision of the Committee and the appeal at Clifton Street.

(6)             A vote was taken by the 11 Members present at the meeting and the Officer recommendation that permission be refused was carried on a vote of 9 in support with 2 abstentions.

103.5      RESOLVED –That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE permission for the reasons set out below:

       i.          The replacement windows to the front elevation, by virtue of their material and detailing, represents a harmful alteration that fails to preserve the character or appearance of the building or wider Preston Park Conservation Area. The proposal is thereby contrary to policies QD14 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, and Supplementary Planning Document 9 Architectural Features, and Supplementary Planning Document 12 Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.

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 Jones was not present at the meeting.