Agenda item

Andrew Horrell, Planning Officer introduced the application for replacement windows to white UPVC. He noted that the site is set back from Lewes Road and is a modern built 2 story hip roof dwelling with soft wood windows. The external materials and finish in 2007 were considered to complement the design and character of dwelling and the wider conservation area and therefore condition 14 removed permitted development rights to preserve it and avoid harmful alterations. Therefore UPVC windows are not considered appropriate and the Officers recommendation is for permission to be refused.   He noted that several properties nearby still have permitted development rights so they could replace existing timer with UPVC windows but as permitted development rights are removed in this case it is contrary to  DP35 of the District Plan and Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan.  The Conservation Officer noted that where there is less than substantial harm to a heritage asset, the harm as outlined under paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should be weighed against the public benefits. As the sole benefit is private to the occupier it is seen that the harm caused outweighs public benefit as it fails to preserve and enhance the building.

Kevin Stagg provided a written statement in his absence in support of the application.

The Chairman noted comments from Ward Member Councillor Clarke which were circulated prior to the meeting.

Councillor Pulfer, also the Ward Member concurred with Councillor Clarke’s comments. He noted that when looking at a conservation area it is always subjective. In this case the new windows would benefit the house in terms of efficiency and would reduce the use of hard woods. It was also noted that other properties nearby retained the permitted development rights and already had UPVC windows so there was no consistency. He proposed a separate motion that the application be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Dabell who noted that the new windows will be similar in look, will improve thermal efficiency and the house is set back far enough from view to not harm the conservation area.

A Member disagreed, noting that the Council’s Design Guide and District Plan should be acknowledged. The application does not comply and therefore the committee needs to be consistent.

The Chairman acknowledged both sides of the issue. He agreed there was a need to maintain the character of the conservation area, but not the detriment of making a house as economical and sustainable as it could be.

The Team Leader noted that Members could put forward a motion to approve the application on the grounds that it does not adversely impact the conservation area, however if they believe there is some harm, this must be balanced against the public benefit, of which there is none in this application. He also noted that this application must be looked at in isolation and not on the basis of what might happen in future applications.

The Chairman took Members to a vote to approve the application on the grounds that it does not cause harm to the conservation area due to the distance that the house is set back. This was proposed by Councillor Pulfer and seconded by Councillor Dabell and approved with 6 votes in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED:

That permission be approved.