Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The applicant’s heritage report supports the retention of the 1950s section of the building but this was disputed by the Authority’s conservation team who stated that the 1950 section is not of interest.  The applicant has stated that only the full development including the four open market houses would be a viable development.

The Officer read out an extract from the report by the independent consultant who had been asked to produce a critical analysis of the applicant’s viability appraisal which highlighted a number or errors and inconsistencies which the applicant has disputed and sent further representation to this effect.

Further discussion had been held with the consultant regarding conversion of the 1913 building only in a way that would enable part of the open atrium to be conserved but still be a viable project and the conclusion was that this would be possible.

The Officer stated that additional letters of support had been received, the contents were summarised as:

·         Support for retention of 1913 and 1950 sections as both part of the history of building, the village and improvement in treatment of water in the 1950s, also great benefit for local businesses and village as a whole.

·         No significant change to traffic, not a big impact on local schools and a need for more local housing.

·         Not an overdevelopment as more people are needed to support village life.

The following made representations to the Committee under the Authority’s Public Participation Scheme;

·         Stuart Shepherd, local resident & Supporter

·         Douglas Hague, Supporter

·         Richard Matthewman, local resident and Supporter

·         Scott Jenkins, Supporter

·         Rachel Hague, on behalf of the Applicant

Members expressed concerns that there was no intention to include affordable housing in the development and that there was a tight turning space on part of the site. 

A motion to defer the proposal for further discussions with the applicant was moved. Members considered the 1950s extension to be of merit and worthy of retention, but they considered that officers and the applicant should explore the possibility of accommodating some affordable housing on the site. The deferral would also allow discussions on matters relating to viability and site layout.

The motion to defer the application was seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to enable officers and the applicant to explore, in the context of development viability and members wish to see the 1950 extension retained, the possibility of accommodating affordable housing on the site. .  Deferral would also allow time for the site layout to be amended to allow vehicular access.

The meeting was adjourned at 11.25 for a short break and reconvened at 11.35.