Decision details

Cllr Brady left the meeting for this item due to a prejudicial interest. Cllr Priestley, Vice Chair took the Chair.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer, who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Jill Skidmore, Supporter – submitted statement read out by the Customer and Democratic Service Senior Advisor.

·         Trevor Ride, Applicant

Some Members considered that the design was acceptable and that it was not obvious that the property was already double glazed, so had no problem with what was being achieved by the applicant, however they were reminded by the Authority Conservation Officer, who attended the meeting to answer any detailed questions, that the double glazed windows were unauthorised with no listed building consent and that other options for glazing were available.

A motion to approve the application, was moved and seconded but not voted on.

Members asked what alternatives could be used?  The Conservation Officer reported that secondary glazing was as efficient as double glazing and generally out performed single glazing.

Members requested that the item be deferred to allow for further discussions between the Officer and Applicant as there was not enough detail in the report regarding the stone mullions that also needed replacing.

The motion to approve the application was withdrawn and a motion to defer the application to allow for further discussions between the Applicant and Officers regarding alternatives and replacement of the stone mullions was moved, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further discussions with the Applicant and Officers to seek further discussions in regard to the proposed  double glazing and the replacement of the mullions.