Agenda item

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

            The Representative of the Service Director – Planning commented as follows:-

The application had been called in by Councillor Gollop as he considered it inappropriate development on the edge of the Downs;

The application sought permission to demolish an existing property and construct a new four-bedroom detached two-storey dwelling with off street parking for three cars and existing hedges retained. The property would be contemporary in appearance;

15 objections were received concerning loss of a cottage in a Conservation area, scale of the proposal, use of materials and inappropriate development in a Conservation Area;

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions including the  revised  energy condition as set out in the Amendment Sheet.

The following points arose during discussion:-

Reference was made to the landscaping plan. It was confirmed that amendments to conditions regarding tree works could be considered;

A condition ensuring that all external materials were agreed with the Planning Authority was in place;

Government legislation and the Council’s own policies were in place to ensure that any planning proposal in a Conservation Area preserved and enhanced the area. There was stronger guidance if an existing property was being extended. With a new build it was a subjective judgement as to whether it preserved and enhanced an area and it did not have to necessarily have to copy what was near to it;

Reference was made to parking during construction in the Construction Management Plan. This was on the fringe of planning control and it was not possible fully referee how a building  takes place;

Councillor Denyer referred to the comments made in Public Forum statements regarding the non-notification of this meeting to objectors. The Representative of the Service Director – Planning replied that he had checked the records and those objectors had been sent notification;

Condition 10 ensured acceptable visibility. Highways Officers were satisfied on highway safety matters;

 Councillor Mead preferred the cottage in its original state and made reference to the photograph of Westerleigh Cottage in its previous colour, that had been circulated. He noted the view from the Downs and believed that the proposal caused harm to the Conservation Area. He was opposed to the proposal;

Councillor Bradley stated that the proposal was an act of vandalism for profit and would vote against granting permission;

Councillor Davies stated that he would support granting, noting that there were substantial policies in place in the Conservation Area, the proposal was of quality specification and efforts had been made to modify the application;

Councillor Denyer was not against the design of the new build. She understood the objections but it was the owner’s right to submit an application. On balance she would vote for granting;

Councillor Eddy stated that the proposal did not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area so he would vote against granting;

Councillor Mead moved that the recommendation to grant be rejected as it caused harm and did not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area and access issues. This was seconded by Councillor Bradley. Before moving to the vote, the representative of the Service Director – Planning advised that conservation experts had stated that it did not cause harm but there was an element of subjectiveness. He sought clarity on the elements of the scheme that caused harm and was informed that these were the footprint, scale, massing and design. He advised against access issues as a reason as the proposal was policy compliant in this regard.

On being put to the vote, there were 6 for and 3 against.

RESOLVED – that the application be refused on the grounds of the footprint, scale, massing & design failing to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.