Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Chair advised the Committee that as items 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the agenda were all linked they would be considered together including representations from those registered to speak under the Public Participation Scheme. (See also minutes 110/17, 111/17 and 112/17)

The following spoke on items 6, 7, 8 and 9 under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Andy Leader, Objector

·         Alistair Flatman, Agent

The Chair welcomed Anna Badcock and Sue Adams from the Cultural Heritage Team who were present to advise the Committee on the impact of the proposed development on from a Cultural Heritage perspective.

Officers provided an update on the works required to address the structural integrity of the building.

A motion to refuse the applications in accordance with the Officer recommendations was moved and seconded. Following a discussion on whether Members needed additional information before determining this application the motion was withdrawn with the consent of the mover and seconder.

A motion to defer consideration of the applications to obtain additional information on the importance of the buildings as heritage assets and consider other possible uses for the buildings was moved and seconded, put to the vote and lost.

A motion to refuse the applications in accordance with the Officer recommendation was moved and seconded, out to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.         By virtue of the proposed building works and proposed use the development would result in harm to the historic and architectural significance of the listed buildings, contrary to Development Plan policies GSP1, GSP3, L3, LC6, LC15, and LC16 and to the heritage conservation policies of the Framework.

2.         Due to the impacts of a residential use within and around the buildings the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the landscape, contrary to Development Plan policies GSP1, GSP3, L1, L3, LC4, and the provisions of the Framework in relation to landscape protection.

3.         Due to impacts associated with a residential use the development would have an adverse effect on bird populations in the area – contrary to Development Plan policies GSP1, L1, LC17, and the provisions of the Framework as they relate to the need to conserve biodiversity.

4.         Due to increased vehicular movements the development would result in conflict with other users of the adjacent bridleway, reducing their safety and quiet enjoyment of the Park in this location, contrary to Development Plan policy T6 and to the requirement of the Framework to protect tranquillity in an area which is prized for its recreational and amenity value for this reason.