Agenda item

The Chair advised that as items 11 & 12 on the agenda were linked they would be considered together (see also minute 148/19)

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the item.  The building was currently in a poor state due to lack of maintenance over the past few years.  Due to the failure to demonstrate that the building was no longer needed for a community use or affordable housing and the harm to the significance of the listed building which would result from the scheme, the recommendation was for refusal. The Planning Officer also set out concerns regarding the lack of a survey to determine whether bats are present in the building.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Peter Wilkinson, Agent

The Officer recommendation for refusal was moved and seconded. 

Members asked how it could be established that there was no longer a need for the community to use the building. Officers advised this could be confirmed by the Parish Council and by looking at bookings for similar facilities in the village to ensure there was availability.

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    There is no evidence within the application that the community facility is either no longer needed by the community or can no longer be viable contrary to the requirements of HC4. HC4.C. goes on to say that wherever possible, the new use must either meet another community need or offer alternative community benefit such as social housing and that evidence of reasonable attempts to secure such a use must be provided before any other use is permitted. Contrary to the requirements of policy HC4 and DSM2 no evidence of a viability and marketing exercise has been submitted. The application asserts that the property would not be suitable for affordable housing but no evidence of contact with the parish council or local affordable housing needs has been submitted. Policies HC4. C. and DSM2 are clear that this evidence must be provided before any alternative use such as a market dwelling is accepted in principle. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be concluded that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

2.    The proposed scheme would harm the significance of the listed building particularly in relation to the insertion of the first floor, and window detailing, contrary to Core Strategy policy L3 and saved Local Plan policies LC4, LC5, LC6 and LC8. In the absence of public benefits that would outweigh the harm that has been identified the proposal is also considered to be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The proposed development would be likely to create intervisibility between facing windows and a loss of privacy which would harm the amenity of the occupants of Elmswell and the proposed dwelling contrary to Core Strategy policy GSP3, saved Local Plan policy LC4 and the Authority’s adopted design guidance.

4.    Insufficient evidence has been provided to allow the Authority to conclude that the proposed development would not harm protected species contrary to Core Strategy policy L2 and saved Local Plan policy LC17.