Window design amendment at The Maltings, Station Street, Tewkesbury

What was proposed

The application sought to amend an earlier permission so minor window-design changes could be accepted.

“Non-material amendment to planning application 22/00532/FUL to allow minor fenestration changes.”

Officer report

The site

The Maltings is a sheltered accommodation block beside a car park and outside, but next to, the conservation area.

“This application relates to The Maltings, a sheltered accommodation flat block located on Station Street in the centre of Tewkesbury. The site is located next to Spring Gardens Car Park and is constructed on the former site of industrial and railway buildings.”

“The site is located adjacent to the Tewkesbury Conservation Area which runs along the northern side of Station Road. Although not in the Conservation Area, the building is within the setting of the Area.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier applications concerned replacement windows, with the 2022 permission approving like-for-like replacement of the existing timber units.

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 13/01111/FUL Replacement of existing timber framed conservatory with a UPVC conservatory, with double glazed window unit.”

“PER 24.12.2013 14/00573/FUL Replacement of existing timber window units with UPVC double glazed units throughout the building. PER 22.08.2014 16/00002/MINOR Replacement of existing timber window units with UPVC double glazed units throughout the building. GRANT 15.03.2016 21/00652/FUL Replacement of existing timber window units with UPVC double glazed units throughout the building.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the installed rectangular windows were considered minor, sympathetic, acceptable in appearance and consistent with the building.

“In respect of the replaced arch top windows, it is considered that the replacement windows as installed are sympathetic to the original building and more ‘honest’ to the contemporary nature of the flat block and the wider area. The changes are therefore considered minor in the context of the overall permission given the nature of the change and the number of windows to the building as a whole.”

“It is considered that the proposed replacement windows as installed are of an acceptable design and appearance which preserve the setting, character and appearance of the Conservation Area and result in an acceptable appearance to the building.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and civic society objected, saying the changes were material and harmed design, appearance and heritage interests.

“- Conflict with policy - Design and visual appearance - Impact on listed building / conservation area - Do not agree that the proposed changes are non-material.”

“Tewkesbury Civic Society - Object - The fenestration details for the 2022 application were material to its approval. - Development would be a material change.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Three objections said the windows differed from the approved scheme, harmed the building and street scene, and raised concerns about opening and fire safety.

“The application has been publicised through the posting of a site notice for a period of 14 days. In response, 3 letters of objection have been received. The comments raised are summarised as follows:”

“- Windows were meant to be replaced ‘like-for-like’ - Design does not match the approved scheme - Planning permission was granted in 2016 for arched design windows - Development dilutes the architectural integrity of the host building - Proposal adversely affects the character and appearance of the street scene - Development would set a precedent - Woodwork which made building attractive removed - Windows do not open wide – fire safety risk - 3 rd floor window previously…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident opposed the amendment and a ward councillor said the arched windows were material and the installed windows harmed the streetscene.

The committee’s debate

Members discussed whether refusal would require retrospective permission and examined the previous enforcement decision and the importance of the window design.

“In response, the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that was not the case as there had been a previous enforcement investigation into whether or not it was considered expedient to take enforcement action in the public interest and it had been concluded it would not be in line with the current Enforcement Plan.”

“The Member who had requested it be brought to the Committee explained that the Committee had debated the planning application at length when it had come before them in 2022 with particular reference to the importance of the fenestration being adhered to, as such, he had felt it was only right that the non-material amendment came to Committee for deliberation.”

Minutes