Agenda item

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Councillor Mrs French in support of the application.

Councillor Mrs French explained that March Town Hall was purchased in 2001/2 by the late Councillor Peter Skoulding, it was then given to the Town of March and since this time the Civic Trust has been formed with the trust gaining a grant from the National Lottery fund of over £1,000,000. She stated In the past the building was used as a Magistrates Court for nine years and was in a bad state of repair and in 2005 the Town Hall re opened and has been used over the past 14 years for many activities, however the windows have deteriorated and when the restoration of the building took place, the windows were not replaced as they proved to be too costly.

Councillor Mrs French added that when the restoration took place the application allowed for the installation of metal double glazed windows. She made the point that March Town Council supports this application and that a precedent has already been set with the previous application in 2003 being approved, she cannot understand why this application is being recommended for refusal today. She expressed the view that the new double glazed windows are for the upstairs room which is used for many purposes including the Town Council which is currently cold, draughty and noisy and the double glazing will address these issues and it is hoped that the Civic Trust can obtain an energy rating certificate and save heating costs if the windows are installed.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall pointed out that directly below some of the first floor windows to be replaced, there are already double glazed aluminium doors and windows, which were approved in 2003. He stated that where the shop front is located, which is double glazed, is on the most prominent elevation of the building facing the market square and the windows that are to be replaced are not the original fabric of the building, they were replaced in the 1970’s with the proposal maintaining the oak surrounds because that is the original material and they are in a reasonable condition.

Mr Hall expressed the view that there are at least 26 other local authorities who have approved the use of slim line double glazed units within Grade 1 and Grade 2 listed buildings in this country with the slim line windows having been specifically designed for the use in listed buildings and are single glazed units which aim to be energy efficient. He added that the manufacturer has confirmed that they are 4mm thick glass panes with a gap between and with careful use with the timber windows there will be minimal difference in the appearance of what is currently in place. Mr Hall added that within the officer’s report under item 10.17, it states that there will be no or little difference to the building when viewed externally and the windows are an area where a gain can be made with regard to energy efficiency; other aspects of the building cannot be changed as it would alter the appearance of the building and impact on the original fabric.  He stated the proposal is not to remove all of the windows in the building; it is only to replace them where they are beyond repair and where the others have been maintained for as long as possible and there is already approved double glazing in the building.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that on the site visit, members saw the windows which had been changed and also the aluminium windows which were at the base of the building. She added that having reviewed the proposal that has been put forward, the frames will look aesthetically very similar and with regard to the erosion of the building, that has probably taken place from the 1970’s onwards. She expressed the opinion that when looking at the front of the building the thickness of the glazing does not make a difference and agreed with the comments that the agent had made with regard to the limitations surrounding the energy efficiency of the building.

·         Councillor Hay expressed the view that had the whole building still remained in its original state, she would understand the concerns in the officer’s report, but a large part of the frontage of the building has metal double glazing and, therefore, from the outside the double glazing suggested would not be noticeable. Had the application been for UPVC windows, then she would not be in favour of the application, however the applicant appears to be doing their upmost to keep the windows in keeping with the building.

·         David Rowen advised members that when the building was originally built, it appears to have had slightly more arched windows, which got changed in the 1960s to have squarer openings. From the 1960’s to 2003 the openings have been bricked up and a different style of window has been installed. In 2003, it is likely that more weight was possibly given to changing the building back to its original form than possibly to the usage of materials. It was likely that consideration was also given to putting that part of the building into a long term use and possibly incorporating the funding bid that Councillor Mrs French had alluded to in her presentation. He concluded by saying that members need to consider that the duty in law to ensure any changes to a listed building respect the external fabric.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that this is an easy application to determine and stated that, in his opinion, members have a balance between keeping the historic content and feeling versus the better insulation. He expressed the view that there are a few options to consider, however he feels that the installation of histo glass would be the preferable option.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the best way to keep a building in a good state of repair is to keep it occupied and that means the building needs to be fit for purpose. If a new building was to be constructed today it would have to have double glazing installed, a 30mm cavity between the glass and energy rated. With the technology and materials available today the building should be made fit for purpose and kept it in a good state of repair. Double glazing also helps to reduce noise, making it a far more bearable facility to be in.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she has taken David Rowen comments on board with regard to the history of the building, but stated that the building needs to be used and needs to be energy efficient.

·         Councillor Sutton takes on board the comments that have been made and agrees that the building needs to be energy efficient. The March Society agree with the Conservation Officer’s comments to avoid double glazed windows and retain the original design whilst exploring the use of histo glass.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation, however there was no seconder to support Councillor Sutton’s proposal.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Murphy and decided that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation.

Members determined that officers be authorised to place suitable conditions on the consent.

(Councillor Court registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of March Town Council and he would be abstaining from the vote regarding this application)