10:51am Friday 16th May 2008
Sir, - I am disappointed in Richmondshire District Council.
For the last 25 years I have been rescuing and regenerating listed buildings in the West Riding.
Over the last 18 months I have been lovingly restoring the former chapel at Clints, Marske.
The triple 18th century apse windows are the chief glory. But there are also two large westfacing first-floor windows which my architect tells me date only from the 1930s.
Having spent some £7,000 insulating the chapel's floor, ceiling and even the panelling it seemed sensible and "green" to save heat by installing doubleglazing.
Unfortunately, my builder mistakenly fitted units with glazing bars 4mm too wide (24mm as against 20mm) I accepted the conservation officer's objection and agreed to replace them.
However, I still wanted double- glazing. I've done the insulation, I want to save the energy.
My architect came up with an alternative that satisfied the "appearance" requirement: 14mm glazing bars with concealed sealing units.
The new application was refused because "the doubleglazed units, despite being of a thinner profile, would still result in a non-traditional profile and form of window that would be wholly out of keeping with the character and appearance of this former chapel building".
Sir, these 1930s windows were of a non-traditional profile and form to begin with. But what of the energy saving?
I wrote to the chairman of the planning committee and to the ward member asking for the matter at least to be considered by the councillors rather than referred back to the same officials who had refused me in the first place. I didn't get replies.
The same officials again ruled under the council's "approved scheme of delegation."
I recently visited Compton Verney, Carr of York's Grade Ilisted masterpiece. The huge replacement windows were - wait for it - double-glazed.
RONNIE DUNCAN Weston, Otley.
© Copyright 2001-2010 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk