Agenda item

Officers gave a presentation on this issue and made the following points:

·       The listed building consent for this site had been deferred for reconsideration following the decision at the last meeting to refuse the full application

·       Two objections had been received to this application including from the Living Easton Heritage Environment Group. They had objected to changes being made to the stone wall and outcrop areas of the public house. However, this property had originally been described as a house only in 1839 and it was only the totem that identified it as a pub

·       Any construction would require planning consent. The site was within the Stapleton/Frome Valley Conservation Area

·       The conservation officer had confirmed that there would be no harm to the site

·       An opening was proposed to the Blackberry Hill frontage and to lowering a section of the wall to ensure that the finish of the wall was acceptable

·       It was connected to the full application as this would help improve visibility for road users

·       Similar works would require both building consent and full planning consent. Therefore, if this application was approved, only internal works would be carried out such as windows and doors, as well as the reinstatement of the totem

·       Details of the proposal was shown which were modest in scale and would be in keeping with the area

·       Officers recommended approval subject to conditions

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·       The application had not been withdrawn but the first application decision to refuse had not yet been appealed. In the event that this was approved and the applicant was successful with any potential future appeal, they would be able to proceed with the internal alterations which were proposed

·       The conservation officer had not identified any reason to refuse this application

·       All applications are considered on their own merits. In this case, it was only the narrow issue of the Listed Building works

·       It was regrettable that it had only been picked up at a late stage that the front sheet on the report incorrectly indicated that this application was recommended for refusal. This has been corrected by the amendment sheet.

·       Whilst it was noted that the existing curtilage was within the development, no harm had been identified by the conservation officer

Committee members made the following comments:

·       This application should reluctantly be supported on its merits. It was noted that the complete development could proceed if the applicant was successful in any future appeal for the main application

·       Although the application could not be refused, it could e perceived as a catalyst for an appeal on the main application and therefore the correct course of action would be to abstain

·       This application should reluctantly be supported

·       There was a legal risk supporting this application and it should therefore be deferred pending legal advice

·       The main development was of great concern and approval of this listed building application could be used as a gateway to this

Officers reminded the Committee that, whilst the separation of the two applications at different meetings had created some difficulties, there would be very limited objections for refusing this application.

Councillor Rob Bryher moved, seconded by Councillor Al Al-Maghrabi and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (6 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions) – that the application is approved subject to the conditions set out in the report

Councillor Guy Poultney left the meeting at this point.