Agenda item

Conditional approval

Public Speaker

Mr Pitcher (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, including aerial photographs taken from the Old Mill.  He reported that three further representations had been received in support of this application.  A meeting had been held with the applicant and her agent to explore possible alternatives, given the personal circumstances and recommendation for refusal.  The agent had responded by email, explaining the reasons for siting the extension as proposed, why the extension could not be sited elsewhere, the nature of the existing outbuildings which meant they could not be converted and the reasons why a temporary building would not be acceptable.

The Acting Development Manager recommended refusal of this application for the reasons set out in the report.

The Chairman referred to the comments of Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer, the local Member, which had been circulated prior to the meeting.  Members confirmed that they had read the comments.

The Head of Planning stated that this was one of the most difficult applications to consider.  Discussions had taken place to explore alternatives, from which it was clear that the applicant’s preference was for an extension as proposed.  It was appreciated by Officers that the extension as now proposed was smaller than a previous application to provide accommodation for grandparents.  He explained that Officers could only give advice on planning decisions based on planning policy.  Officers had identified a material level of harm to the listed buildings and their settings.  The harm was considered to be towards the middle to lower end of the spectrum of harm, but the Council had a duty to protect the listed buildings.  He advised the Committee with regard to the assessment of harm and the weighing of public benefit which had led to the recommendation, and the issues for the Committee to consider in this case.  On the basis of planning policy and case law, the application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor D Baker considered that the report was positive, but it had concluded with a recommendation of refusal.  There had been no objections, the Parish Council was sympathetic and he considered that a great deal of weight should be given to the lack of objection from occupiers of the heritage asset.  The proposal did not contravene Policy HO8 and would be well screened.  He understood that planning decisions could not be made on compassionate grounds.  However, Government planning guidance gave substantial weight to children’s interests and he considered that this was an extraordinary case.  The Head of Planning had stated that the harm to the listed buildings would be less than substantial and the height of the extension would not have an impact on the listed building.  He stated that he would be proposing approval of the application.

Councillor N Pearce considered that there was more than enough scope to say that the level of harm was not substantial.  He considered that this was a situation where approval could be given to ensure that the family could look after their child, who would need an increasing level of care.

The Head of Planning and Principal Lawyer advised the Committee with regard to the presumption in favour of the protection of heritage assets and the need to weigh the public benefit against the harm to the heritage assets.  Officers had provided a professional assessment of the issues.

There being no proposer for the Officers’ recommendation, the Chairman put the recommendation to the Committee and it was lost with no Members voting in favour.

The Head of Planning requested delegated authority to draw up any conditions, in conjunction with the Chairman.  In view of the urgency of this matter pre-commencement conditions would be kept to a minimum.

Councillor D Baker considered that there was enormous public benefit to the development for the family, their friends and the local community which was supporting the family, to give comfort for the family to be able to move forward.

It was proposed by Councillor D Baker, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and

RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Reasons: The public benefit arising from this application is considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.