Agenda item

Decision

Refused

Officer’s Report

The PO-CG introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He confirmed the site location and the relationship of the proposal with adjacent listed and curtilage listed building. It was noted that the garage was constructed without planning permission, and the plans submitted at time the Committee report had been prepared had subsequently been revised. The proposed changes were to include a double dual pitch roof (as opposed pyramidal roof) which was considered to be more in keeping with the general shape of the adjacent barns, the substitution of the roller door for a more in keeping timber door, and removal of the brick wall and replacement with a hedge.

The PO-CG confirmed he had received informal comments from the Councils Conservation Officer, who advised that the applicant had reduced the grounds for objection, hence the level of harm is reduced. It is now far more finely balanced whether refusal can be sustained or not. Had the garage blocked principle views of the main listed buildings, it might be a different matter. There may be a risk of refusing the application with the garage being located in peripheral position. The Conservation Officer considered that there weren’t any obvious public benefits, but that there was relatively low levels of residual harm. The PO-CG affirmed guidance from paragraph 202 of the NPPF which sets a test of harms weighed against public benefit, in this instance as the building is in domestic use at present there is no counterweighing public benefit to allowing a harmful additional building.

It was noted that comments were circulated to Members from the agent, received after the publication of the agenda. Members indicated, as these comments were received late, that they would like for the Case Officer to summarise. The PO-CG confirmed he had received 2 emails (both of which are available on the planning portal), the first raised objections to the way in which the Case Officer had summarised neighbours comments, which they considered to be misleading.  Further comments received were in support of the amended plans.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett left the meeting.

Public Speakers

Dr Michelle Lyon – Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

1. Cllr A Brown recognised that this was a finely balanced application, and noted the applicants willingness to work with Officers to introduce amendments to make the scheme more acceptable. He considered the appearance of the site without the garage and whether this may result in unsightly parking instead, noting the representation from the agent that the garage was of public benefit in improving the appearance and attractiveness of the site. Cllr A Brown considered the harm arising to the heritage asset to be less than substantial, particularly given the amendments, and reflected that should members refuse the application, and it were go to appeal, that the Planning Inspector would likely support the application. He advised that he had yet to make his mind up.

2. The Chairman advised that Members must first consider and vote on the Officer’s recommendation before considering any alternative.

3. Cllr V Holliday considered the original comments from the Conservation & Design Officer, which she commented had not been entirely negated by the subsequent amended plans, and therefore she contended that there would still be harm arising to the agrarian setting.  Cllr V Holliday proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

4. Cllr J Toye noted the retrospective nature of the application and its associated history. Further, the owner had replaced owl slots in the brickwork with modern windows on the main dwelling, a matter he considered should be addressed by Building Control.  Cllr J Toye was not confident that the applicant would build something which was sympathetic, he therefore seconded the Officers recommendation for refusal.

RESOLVED by 6 votes for and 5 against

That Planning Application PF/23/0929 be refused in accordance with the Officers Recommendation.