Agenda item

This item was brought forward on the agenda as the speaker had arrived.

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The report was presented by the Planning Officer, who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Richard Evans- Agent

Members acknowledged that the proposed extension projected forward and detracted from the principal elevation of the building.  Come Members stated that it may be possible for the applicant to find a more sympathetic solution.

A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded, voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

The design and positioning of the proposed extension is not considered to be complementary to the parent building in terms of form and massing nor reflective of the local vernacular building tradition of simple building shapes.  The proposal would detract from the existing appearance of the property as a former religious chapel.  The proposal would not conserve or enhance the character, appearance, setting or significance of the non designated heritage asset and is contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3 and L3 and Development Management policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMH7.