Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer who asked Members to note that a planning application for a stable block and parking had been granted since the report had been prepared.  The location of the approved stable block was pointed out on the site plan shown to committee.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Dr Michael Jones – Applicant

Members questioned the planning details regarding the juliet balcony currently approved which showed doors that were not able to open due to the level of the interior floor and if the building was listed.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the design of the juliet balcony had not been raised by the applicant with officers at the time of the previous application, and that the building was not listed.

A Member requested clarification regarding the heritage value of the building as the present construction was in large part a relatively modern build after the previous building had been destroyed.  Officers clarified that, although the building was recently constructed it has been rebuilt to closely reflect the original building and retained heritage value and industrial character.  Because of this the current application went against the guidance in the Design Guide.

Members queried if it would be appropriate to defer the application whilst alternatives were discovered but Officers advised that refusal was the appropriate action as other proposals would require a different application to be made, and Officers would continue discussions with the applicant regarding providing more amenity for the building and the issues around the construction of the post and rail fence also proposed, which Members queried the materials and design of.

A motion to refuse the application in line with Officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

The application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

The balcony, by virtue of its position, size and design would cause harm to the significance of Dains Mill, which is a non-designated heritage asset. The harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits.  Consequently the proposals are contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP3 and L3, Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5, DMH7 and DMC10 and advice in the Authority’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents  ‘Conversion of Historic Buildings’ and ‘Alterations and Extensions’