Agenda item

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.  Members were informed that on the site visit the previous day the applicant had suggested the external boiler element of the proposal would be withdrawn, but as yet it had not been formally removed from the application, so  it did still form part of the proposal.

The Officer informed Members that although the Authority had no objections to the greenhouse element of the application, they did have concerns on the extension and external boiler as well as the form and position and arrangement of the extension.  

The Officer also informed Members that to fully understand the impacts on the heritage significance of the building, a heritage assessment was needed so the application could be fully assessed.  The accompanying Listed Building Consent application was withdrawn during the course of the application, so it was considered it would be prejudicial to grant planning permission without this consent, as the Authority had to consider the significance of the Listed Building in all of the planning decisions.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr & Mrs Harvey, Applicant – Statement read out by Democratic Services

Members were concerned that no Heritage Impact Assessment had been submitted, and that the applicant was advised 2 years ago that a detailed heritage assessment was required to fully assess the proposal, but none was submitted so previous applications had been withdrawn.

Members resolved to add a further reason for refusal, being that the design of the extension was inappropriate.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The application fails to provide adequate heritage assessment to allow an understanding of the significance of the listed building to be reached, or for the impacts of the development on the significance, architectural or historic interest of the listed building or conservation area to be understood, contrary to Development Management policies DMC5 and DMC7 and the NPPF.

2.    The application fails to demonstrate that the development would conserve the significance of the listed building and conservation area, or that arising harm would be outweighed by public benefits, contrary to policies Core Strategy policy L3, Development Management policies DMC5 and DMC7, DMC8, and the NPPF.

3.    The proposals would require and facilitate internal alterations to the building which would require listed building consent. No such consent has been granted at this time. Approval of the application could be deemed prejudicial to the consideration of any future listed building consent application. It would also not be appropriate to grant a planning permission that would not be capable of implementation.

4.    The design of the proposed extension would fail to conserve the character and appearance of the dwelling, contrary to adopted planning policy.