Agenda item

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and relayed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. It was noted that the existing first floor windows were of poor condition and in need of replacement, and that the proposed new windows would match that existing windows installed on the second floor, as approved under application PF/20/0968. The Officer’s report considered the incorporation of such windows locally, as well as on the building, and determined the benefit of unifying the style of windows with the frontage above. The Officer’s recommendation established that there would not be an unacceptable level of harm caused to the host building or the Cromer Conservation Area.

Public Speakers

Tim Bartlett – Councillor, Cromer Town Council

1. Cllr T Adams - Local Member stated his concern that no appraisal of the impact on the Grade I listed St Peters Church, located opposite the site, had been included within the report. The impact of which, Cllr T Adams determined to be significant and material to the decision making. He added that the use of UVPC plastic windows within the Cromer Conservation Area would have a detrimental effect to the visual impact of the host building, and would be noticeable from the street scene.  Previous comparable applications, including 28 High Street and 14 Mount Street, had been refused, with these refusals being upheld at appeal. Cllr T Adams noted that the application did not comply with policies EN4 or EN8.

2. The MPM read a statement prepared by Cllr A Yiasimi -Local Member for Cromer, who had been unable to attend the meeting. Cllr A Yiasimi detailed his approval of the Officers recommendation, and determined that the heritage white wood grain effect UPVC window frame would match the existing windows located on the second floor.

3. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted the use of UVPC windows within the Cromer Conservation Area had repeatedly been discussed at Committee, with Members historically supporting the conservation of Cromer Town by refusing such applications. She added that having declared a Climate Emergency it was important to limit the use of plastic, and suggested voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

4. Cllr V Holiday affirmed that the ground floor and first floor should be considered together as a unit, as opposed to the first and second floor, as this would be more noticeable from the street. It was noted that the ground floor did not have plastic UVPC windows. Cllr V Holiday supported voting against the officer’s recommendation.

5. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated use of UVPC windows on the first floor would be noticeable to onlookers, and was considered to have a detrimental effect to the building and the Conservation Area more broadly.

6. Cllr N Lloyd commented that whilst he would normally support the use of double glazing for environmental reasons, on this occasion he had been persuaded by Members the use of Wood, with its insulating properties would be more suitable for the location.

7. In response to questions raised by the Chairman, the DMTL-CR relayed the Conservation Officers comments, in recognising that plastic windows were already in situ on the building, noting a small benefit in unifying the appearance of the first and second floors. The MPM advised the Conservation Officer had carefully considered the need to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area. Prior permission had been granted for use of plastic windows on the second floor at Hagley House.

8. The Chairman enquired whether the Committee should take a view against the use of UVPC in future, within a design code. The ADP advised it would be inappropriate and demonstrate pre-determination, as each application should be considered on its merits. The principle matters to be considered with respect to this application were matters of design and the impact on the Conservation Area.

9. Cllr A Brown noted that the Committee were not limited to following the precedent for the use of plastic windows, and questioned the absence of the conservation appraisal for the Officers report.

10. Cllr N Pearce stated as there was a precedent for use of UVPC windows on the building, it would be difficult to substantiate an objection, and therefore proposed the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

11. Cllr J Toye supported representations made by Members in objecting to the Officer’s recommendation, noting differences to the second floor due to the existence of bay windows, making the first floor more visible from the street..

12. The Chairman seconded the proposal made by Cllr N Pearce.

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 6 votes against, and 5 votes for.

13. Cllr V Holiday proposed refusal of the application due to associated harm caused to the heritage asset in accordance with policies EN4 and EN8.

14. The MPM noted discussion from Members that the perceived harm to the character and appearance from the use of materials outlined in the application in the Cromer Conservation Area, outweighed any public benefits, under NPPF paragraph 202. The PL reminded members of Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Act in determining applications, that special attention was needed in the preserving and enhancing buildings.

15. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the proposal, and comments made by the PL, that the application neither preserved nor enhanced the designated heritage asset, and that substantial harm was caused to the Conservation Area.

RESOLVED by 6 votes for, and 5 against.

That application PF/21/2544 be approved in accordance with policies EN4, EN8 and Paragraph 202 of the NPPF.