Agenda item

Refusal.

The Planning Officer presented the report and referred to the slides that had previously been circulated to the Committee.  She reported that the Parish Council continued to object to the amended application in respect of development in the historic area, materials, loss of garden space and unsafe access onto Bridewell Street.  She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer read a statement of objection from a neighbouring resident, Mr Postgate, who was unable to attend the meeting.

Public Speaker

Richard Smith (supporting)

Councillor C Cushing stated that he was speaking as the local Member was unable to speak on this application and he was a neighbouring Ward Member.  He stated that the report acknowledged that there was no reason in principle why development could not take place in this location.  He considered that the proposed development was in keeping with the area and would not be intrusive, and in his opinion was in compliance with Policy EN8.  He referred to the arboricultural impact assessment with regard to the trees, which were of poor quality or of low amenity value and he considered that the application should not be refused on grounds of Policy EN4, particularly as two trees were to be planted.   He supported the application.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that it was under a legal obligation to preserve and enhance heritage assets.  There was more than one heritage asset to consider in this case; as well as the Conservation Area and how the building would assimilate into the area, the host building was also a Listed Building and its setting should be considered.  The garden of 18 Bridewell Street would be foreshortened and therefore its setting would be affected by the proposal.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader explained that the setting of a Listed Building was how it was experienced, and in his opinion the best way to do so was in its original context with its original garden and enclosures in place.  He considered that it was difficult to consider that an additional building within the original curtilage could be seen as positive.  He explained how the proposed building, and its materials, would be seen from outside the site.  He was concerned that the proposed dwelling would be imposing on the yard, rather than be assimilated within it.

The Principal Lawyer read to the Committee, sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act which set out the statutory duty relevant to this case.

At the request of the Chairman, the Development Manager explained the levels of harm.  She stated that ‘less than substantial harm’ was wide ranging and the Committee had to establish where on the scale this proposal sat.  It was necessary for public benefit to outweigh the harm.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle stated that he was surprised at how modern the surrounding buildings were.  The building on the opposite side of the yard had a similar finish to the proposed building.  He considered that access would not be an issue.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that Walsingham was a special place and internationally known, and stressed how important it was to preserve its character. She proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

Councillor A Brown seconded the proposal.  He considered that the proposed building would camouflage the Listed Building from the street.  It appeared that the materials and design would not satisfy the North Norfolk Design Guide and he asked why the applicants had not been requested to redesign the building to blend into the area.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader explained that the original proposal had included timber cladding which had been removed in response to his concerns.  Although render was used on another property in the yard, it was set back and the visible materials in the yard were brick and flint.  In his latest comments, he had suggested using more traditional materials that would assimilate the building into the Conservation Area.

The Chairman referred to comments by Mr Smith that the proposed building would provide a uniform frontage to Chapel Yard so there would not be a gap.  She asked if this was substantial.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader explained that this was a yard, framed by buildings, but was not a street scene in the conventional sense.  He did not view the site as a gap site and considered that the wall around the site was a strong enclosure.  He did not consider that an additional building would make a positive contribution.

Councillor R Kershaw considered that there would be harm and a loss of amenity.  The reduction of the size of the garden would be detrimental, and the area provided a welcome open space in a crowded area.  Whilst the trees were past their best, they provided a welcome relief and he considered that a building on the site would be detrimental.

Councillor N Pearce considered this was an area of disused land, the trees were not worthy of retention and two trees would be planted.  He considered that discussions could be held with the agent with regard to the render.  He considered that the harm was at the lower end of the scale, highway concerns had been negated, and the proposal would allow another dwelling within the village.  He supported the application.

The Development Manager clarified that this was not an area of disused land as it was the garden to 18 Bridewell Street and could be maintained as such.

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.