Listed building alterations at 5 Golgotha Village, Lancaster
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Lancaster Planning Regulatory Committee on 22 Jun 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought replacement windows and doors, a rear mechanical extract fan and replacement electric heaters.
“26/00068/LB Listed building application for the installation of replacement window and doors, new mechanical extract fan to rear and replacement electric heaters. Bowerham Ward A”
Minutes
Heritage and design
Officers considered the replacement windows, doors, ventilation grille and heaters acceptable and assessed heritage harm as less than substantial.
“The existing casement windows are not original to the property and do not contribute positively to the significance of the building. As such, the replacement of these with slimline double-glazed units in a suitably designed timber frame is acceptable. Originally, the proposal sought to mimic the appearance of the existing top-hung windows, which would not provide any enhancement.”
“The installation of a mechanical vent to prevent condensation and mould in the kitchen raises no concerns, subject to the use of a suitable extract grille on the exterior wall. The amended plans indicate a black metal grille – further details can be secured through planning condition. Replacement of electric heaters with more modern, energy efficient models is also acceptable.”
Officer report
Officers’ recommendation
Officers recommended approval because the proposal complied with relevant policies and would preserve the listed building’s special architectural or historic interest.
“Any harm is less than substantial and is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of improving the thermal efficiency of the Listed Building, contributing to its conservation and its sustainable long- term use as a dwellinghouse. Overall, the proposed works are considered to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the Listed Building.”
“For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant local and national polices and as such is recommended for approval.”
Officer report
Neighbour representations
No neighbour representations had been received when the officer report was compiled.
“At the time of compiling this report, no neighbour representations have been received.”
Officer report
The committee vote
The approval proposal received 15 votes in favour, with none against and no abstentions.
“It was proposed by Councillor Keith Budden and seconded by Councillor John Hanson:”
“Upon being put to the vote, 15 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.”
Minutes
The decision
The committee approved the application subject to conditions covering the consent period, amended plans, and construction details for windows and the vent.
“That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:”
“Listed Building Consent time limit. 2. Works in accordance with Amended Plans. 3. Precise construction details of Windows and Vent.”
Minutes
Sources
- Lancaster Planning Regulatory Committee minutes, 22 June 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Lancaster's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Lancaster
- Date
- Monday 22 June 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- 15 for, 0 against
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Lancaster committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
59 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.