Agenda item

The MPM introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He advised that the application had been brought to the Committee in accordance with the Constitution as the application had been submitted by Cllr’s T Fitzpatrick and V Fitzpatrick. The MPM noted that the proposed application was a resubmission application from a scheme which had been previously refused by the Development Committee in 2020.

He noted that the description on page 151, paragraph two, was incorrect and that the proposed materials would consist of brick with a natural slate roof and aluminium metal windows.

He advised the most significant matter for consideration was the impact of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the Walsingham Conservation Area. The proposal would be contained with the rear garden of a grade two listed building, 18 Bridewell Street, and would result in the loss of a historic wall to gain vehicle access. In accordance with Section 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act, the Council had a statutory duty to given weight to the preservation of heritage assets. He noted that Officers considered there to be limited capacity within the site to provide proportionate mitigation planting to replace the five trees which would need to be removed and to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

The MPM concluded that whilst the proposed plan was an improvement on those previously submitted, there were relatively modest public benefit when weighed against the harm to the heritage asset.

Public Speakers

Vincent Fitzpatrick – Supporting

1. The Chairman advised that the Local Member, Cllr T Fitzpatrick, was not present due to a conflict of interest.

2. Cllr N Pearce expressed his support of the application. He considered the proposed use of materials to be sympathetic with the local area and stated that there would be preservation of the historic setting through the retention of a large portion of the existing wall, and noted that the trees lost through the development were already in poor condition. He affirmed that there would be minimal material change to the area, with the site set away from public view.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that the materials used were vernacular with the area and that this was an overall improvement on the previous application, but expressed concern with relation to policy EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and highlighted the Conservation and Designs Officers assessment on page 80 of the Agenda Pack. He affirmed that the proposed development would be surrounded by 4 listed buildings, in the centre of Little Walsingham which had significant historic and cultural heritage.

4. In response to questions from Cllr A Brown, the MPM advised that the trees which would be removed by consequence of the development would be replaced, but that the replaced trees would extensively contribute to a lack of natural light. Whilst off-site mitigation was possible, the MPM questioned where this would be and how it would be provided, and noted that there was no clear precedent for such process other than securing a planning obligation but that this would require an alternate site to be known and agreed upon.

5. Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation and noted that the proposed development would fail to comply with policy’s EN4, EN7 and EN9 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and that he was concerned about the loss of trees through the development.

6. Cllr P Heinrich considered the design to be sympathetic with the surrounding buildings, and noted that other properties in the area were of modern design. He commented that the apple trees located on the site to be of a poor condition, and therefore could be considered of reduced value. He reflected of the potential matter of Highway Safety in that the turning area for vehicles in the chapel yard would be very tight, but noted that lack of objection from the Highways Authority.

7. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle affirmed that the development would be very visually appealing, and acknowledged that there were other properties located in close proximity which were far more modern and larger in scale than that of the proposed development.

8. Cllr L Withington enquired whether a condition could be applied that a brick and flint wall be erected between the proposed and existing property which would reflect the view from the existing dwelling, and which would aid to retain the integrity of the site. The MPM advised that if Members were so minded, and considered this the suggestion may assist to mediate the heritage impact, that this could be added as a condition.

9. Cllr J Toye noted the loss of biodiversity and intensification of a small plot. He sympathised with the applicant but considered that there may be a variation in the long term future use of the property, and only the property itself could be considered not the applicants own circumstances.

10. The Chairman stated that it was a small site area located within the Walsingham Conservation Area and that the land had formed part of an ancient orchard, and whilst the apple trees on the site could be retained they may be compromised by the development.

11. Cllr A Varley seconded the proposal and affirmed that the integrity of the Walsingham Conservation Area must be protected, and that the proposal was contrary to policy EN4 and neither preserved nor enhanced the protected area.

12. The MPM reminded members that in determining the application, Members were not granting personal planning permission, and that the property would exist in perpetuity with a potentially different future use. He advised Members to consider and weigh the harm to the associated heritage assets by consequence of the development against public benefit.

RESOLVED by 8 votes for, and 4 against.

That planning application PF/21/3302 be REFUSED in line with the officer’s recommendation with final wording or reasons to be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning.