Agenda item

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and outlined the reasons for refusal. The core issue being the design of the outbuilding and its visual impact upon the setting of the grade II listed asset. It was acknowledged that the harm arising from the proposal was low, and that any harm must be outweighed by public benefits, required under paragraph 202 of the NPPF. Officers concluded that this was a finely balanced proposal but that benefits did not outweigh the identified harm, and would be in conflict to policy EN8 and paragraph 202 of the NNPF.

Public Speakers

Debbie Boon (Supporting)

1. Cllr R Kershaw - Local Member established his support for the application and acknowledged the retrospective nature of the application was due to incorrect planning advice received by the applicant from the former architect. He added that the applicant had made every effort to comply with the Conservation Officers recommendations, and had agreed to the removal of the separate garden shed in addition to landscape planting which may help soften the visual impact of the studio outbuilding. The local Member recognised the high level of restoration the owners had brought to the old school house, and the value that they had brought to the local community and economy. Cllr R Kershaw indicated his support for approval under SS1, SS2 and under NPPF section 14.

2. In response to comments made by the Chairman, the DMTL-CR advised that officers had considered the listed nature of the building and that the NNPF required great weight to be added to conserving heritage assets, and that any harm level be outweighed by public benefits.  The ADP affirmed the buildings listed status and that appropriate weight be applied accordingly. He added that it was a prominent building, and the use of additional landscape planting may help mitigate the appearance of the outbuilding. It was stated that Members must consider that it was a permanent structure, which would remain in perpetuity. The ADP stated that it was for Members to consider the appearance of the outbuilding and its setting, in relation to the listed building, and apply weight appropriately any positive elements considered to be of wider public benefit.

3. The PL reminded Members of Section 66 of the Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Act, which stated in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or setting, that the local Planning Authority should have special regard for the desirability of preserving the building or setting.

4. Following questions from the Chairman, the DMTL-CR stated that the application would not be classified under permitted development, irrespective of its listed status, as it is beyond the principle elevation of the building.

5. Cllr J Rest stated he had observed other larger buildings which had been erected in gardens throughout the District, and was therefore opposed to refusal.

6. Cllr N Lloyd spoke in favour of the application in supporting the economic benefits brought to the area through the development.

7. Cllr J Toye considered the harm associated with the structure was best determined by local residents, and noted the unanimous support for the application.

8. Cllr N Pearce questioned how harm to the heritage asset could be measured, and how this metric was decided. He also acknowledged the unanimous support within the local community for the application, which would bring economic benefits to the applicant and area.

9. The ADP highlighted the detailed comments made by Conservation Officer, noted that the harm was towards the lower end of the spectrum. He added that Members must consider the balance of wider public benefits that may accrue, or mitigation which may be delivered to help with the impact of the harm created.

10. Cllr R Kershaw acknowledged that the applicant had demonstrated willingness to take down the existing garden shed, which would help lessen the visual impact and therefore harm on the listed building. He added that the outbuilding had previously been re-cited and therefore could not be determined to be entirely permanent.

11. Cllr V Holiday stated North Norfolk depended on its heritage assets which serve as an economic benefit through tourism, and should not be treated lightly. She added that any harm, even if minimal would still be considered harm.

12. Cllr T Adams spoke against the officer’s recommendation, stating that there were public and economic benefits to the application.

13. Cllr V Holiday proposed acceptance of the officers recommendation, the Chairman seconded.

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 9 votes against, to 3 votes for.

Cllr R Kershaw proposed approval of the application, in accordance with policies SS1, SS2, EN4 and EN8, noting the harm was less than substantial and outweighed by public benefits. Cllr J Toye seconded this proposal, and referred to paragraph 202 of the NNPF, adding that the development enabled the property to remain maintained and permanently inhabited, rather than as a holiday home. The benefits therefore outweighed the harm to the heritage asset.

14. The ADP summarised Members discussion and noted potential conditions for the granting of the proposal, including the removal of the separate shed, and landscape agreements. He added that Members could consider the granting of permission on a temporary or long term basis, and specify a set timeframe, to aid with the mitigation of harm.

15. Cllr R Kershaw amended his proposal to include condition for approval to be subject to the removal of the existing garden shed, and additional planting being used to soften the visual impact the outbuilding has on the landscape.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for, 2 against.

That application PF/21/2656 be approved subject to conditions relating to the removal of the additional garden shed, and inclusion of landscape planting.