Issue - meetings

Replacement and refurbishment of existing degraded timber sash windows to match existing.

Permit following deferral

Mr Saunders introduced the application. 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Alan Green – Supporter (Chairman of Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee)

Mr John Kingdon - Applicant

Mr Richard Plowman – CDC Ward Member

During the discussion Members debated the impact of double-glazing for thermal efficiency, poor maintenance of original windows, taking advantage of modern technology, and supporting the university.  Members further debated the layout of the site which was crowded with utilitarian buildings which limited views of South House, the importance of conserving the building and allowing continued use.  Members sought clarification regarding the buildings listed status, the difference in appearance of single glazing compared to secondary glazing and double-glazing.  Members made further comments regarding ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’, that substantial harm would not be caused by the proposals, that the building was not in public view and that thermal efficiency could be gained by other methods. Mr Broadway explained that climate emergency and the conservation of buildings is often seen as a delicate situation with regards to finding an appropriate balance, but in many respects this is a false dilemma as there are a range of measures which could be employed which do not cause harm to a building and achieve thermal efficiency.  Mr Whitty added that he appreciated the comments made by Members during the debate, and that the windows were not publicly visible, but changing the windows would cause a loss of part of the original fabric of the building, which could alternatively be repaired.  In relation to comments that supporting the application would not set a precedent, Mr Whitty advised that this may have an impact with regards to future applications and appeals concerning window replacement with double-glazing on other buildings which may be publicly more visible, iterating that thermal efficiency could be gained by other methods. 

The Chairman requested that the application was deferred for a correct submission of the plan regarding the outline of the building.  Mr Whitty responded that this may result in a further consultation period.  Clear reasons would be required as to the reason for permitting, which on balance, was less harm.

Recommendation to Permit agreed contrary to office recommendation following deferral for submission of correct site plan and any necessary actions. 

Conditions to include section information, to ensure adequate detailing would be achieved.