Agenda item

The representative of the Service Director – Planning made the following points by way of introduction:-

a.     The application relates to a three-storey, Grade II* Listed Building known as Mortimer House, in Clifton.  The applicant seeks to reinstate the curtilage to the front of Mortimer House to the original eighteenth century landscape layout and provide 10 car parking spaces to the rear of the listed building with associated landscaping.

b.     Committee were shown the plans for the 2016 scheme that was approved.  The plan detailed the parking in the front.  The application approved 6 parking spaces.  An image of the property from 1828 was shown together with the wall to Mortimer Road.

c.      No objections to the application were received from Historic England or the Conservation Officer. The public benefit of returning the curtilage to the front of Mortimer House was viewed favourable.

d.     Transport Development Management had no objection to the scheme as there would be no significant increase in traffic resulting from the proposals.

e.     The applications for planning permission and listed building consent are both recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor’s point of clarification

f.       Clarity was provided on the current layout of the site.  Renovations are underway with contractors parking on site to the front of the building.  The permissions granted in the 2016 application allows for parking in the front and that application had not yet expired. 

g.     Public forum submission alleged that assurances were given that the rear garden would remain intact but this was not conditioned in the 2016 application.

h.     The restoration of the front garden would have a beneficial visual impact but the design appeared to allow for vehicles to enter the site and this was queried.  To prevent this, condition 7 had been included to provide for ‘protection of parking and servicing provision’.

i.       Concerns had been raised in respect of the residents access to the pump on site and the issues surrounding the wicker fence boundary.

·        The application provides for improved access to the pump, committee were referred to the plans.

·        The boundary to the properties at the rear, would be screened off by a low level wooden fence and addition planting to provide screening for residents.

j.       The applicants intend to use the renovated building as office space and as a training centre.   Planning policy commonly allowed for similar developments to be permitted 18 car parking spaces.

Councillor’s comment

k.      Cllr Davies, was minded to approve as he viewed the return of the building to the historical setting would be beneficial and this would require parking to be moved to the rear of the building so cars would not spoil the view.

l.       Cllr Mead, was unable to support this view.  The building was historic in nature whether it was viewed from the front and/or rear; considered that it was situated in an area well served by public transport; the loss of a mature garden would also be a loss of amenity; minded to vote against approval.

m.    Cllr Eddy, viewed the proposed changes to the front and rear as an enhancement to the gardens and would add to the historic setting; considered public transport for those attending training and/or staff members not always adequate.  Minded to support approval.

n.     Cllr Denyer, inclined to vote against.  Took the view that the existing permission provided 6 parking spaces at the front of the building and that design did not negate the impact of the historic building.  The garden in its existing condition was not a reason to move parking spaces to the rear as the rear garden can be restored to the benefit of existing neighbours.

o.     Cllr Breckels, would vote against.  The permission granted in 2016 provided for landscaping to the front to accommodate parking for 6 vehicles which was adequate; balanced with good public transport between local train stations to the development; there were benefits to keeping the rear garden as a break-out space; improvement in the garden amenity was worth exploiting.

p.     Cllr Clough, was minded to approve.  Considered improvement to the car parking spaces accessibility a benefit to those with mobility issues.

q.     Cllr Denyer in answer to her question on what construction material was provided for in  the 2016 permission for the frontage was advised that it allowed for a combination of paving and loose gravel.

r.       Cllr Eddy proposed approval and Cllr Davies seconded.

The resulting vote was 4 in favour of the motion and 5 against, so the motion was lost.

Cllr Mead then proposed refusal on the grounds that the site was in a sustainable location well served by public transport, that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area, this was seconded

Resolved: (4 votes for approval and 5 against approval) that planning permission be refused for the following reason;

·        The development is in a sustainable transport location  well served by public transport and the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area.