Agenda item

Replacement windows throughout (retrospective). [Guildhall Ward]

Due to amendments to the running order of the agenda, this item was considered last.  Members considered a full application for replacement windows throughout (retrospective) by Alexander McCallion.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application and confirmed that the revised NPPF included no revisions that were material to the determination of the application.

Public Speakers

Christina Funnell spoke in support of the application, noting the benefits of the thermally efficient windows for the building’s occupants.  She did not consider that the aesthetics outweighed the cost to the charity of replacement.

Oliver Caroe, the architect for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He described the existing street scene, stating that the windows had no meaningful bearing on the setting and noting the challenges presented by a low carbon retrofit.

In response to questions from Members he stated that the installed replacement windows, which were made of extruded aluminium, had a similar profile to Crittall windows and that they had compared both options. He stated that, in his opinion, the windows did not harm the building or setting.

Alexander McCallion, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He highlighted the public benefit relating to their decision to address the climate emergency through the low-carbon retrofit, noting the limited resources available to safeguard the future of the Minster.

In response to questions, he stated that the replacement windows were the best available within the budget; they had been installed before the condition had been discharged.  He stated that Crittall-style windows were not as efficient and agreed that this was the main difficulty.

The Design and Conservation Manager responded to Members’ questions and reported that the Church House was previously an industrial building, with large windows and thin profile frames.  Although they could not be exactly replicated and maintain thermal efficiency, there were many replacement alternatives.  Officers had not been provided the opportunity to discuss these options with the applicant.  The thickness of the frames, that they were white together with the loss of the slim, moulded profiles, particularly at the ground floor level, were the mains areas for concern.

Members were advised that the costs and options for the applicant, should the application be refused, were not a consideration for the planning committee.

Following debate, Cllr Warters moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by the Chair.  On being put to a vote, Members voted two in favour and six against, therefore the motion fell.

Cllr Fenton subsequently proposed approval of the application, given that he did not consider that there was harm caused to the historic assets and conservation setting, and this was seconded by Cllr Baxter.  Following a further debate, during which a condition relating to the outward window openings was discussed, a vote was taken and with Members voting six in favour and two against, it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be delegated to the Development Manager to approve, following an investigation into the need or otherwise for a condition restricting the outward opening of the windows.

Reason:                The proposal would not harm the character of the building, the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings.