To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application which had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred from the previous meeting so that a site visit could be made by the Planning Working Group.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan, the proposal for the siting of 2 dwellings and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The recent views of the Conservation officer and the impact of the proposal on the conservation area
· Possible overdevelopment of the site
· The impact on the street scene
· The removal of the hedge and wall
· The views of Members of the Planning Working Group
· The applicant’s wish to defer the decision to allow for revisions to be made to the scheme in line with the Conservation Officer’s report.
RESOLVED that members were minded to refuse the application and deferred the application to allow for the receipt of a report setting out the implications of the proposed reasons for refusal based on the following issues:
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· That the development was not in keeping with the street scene.
· The impact of the development on the setting of the conservation area.
· Parking arrangements were insufficient.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr R F Radford)
Notes-:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in deal with Planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Mrs Woodman (Agent) spoke;
(iii) Mr Higman spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(iv) Cllr Mrs J Roach spoke as Ward Member;
(v) The following late information was reported: MDDC Conservation: The character is one of transition between the rural fields and the denser housing of the historic village. The house itself has no historic merit and I have no objection to its demolition. The plot is not large and fitting two properties into the site along with parking creates negative impacts, especially on the street scene. Because the majority of the low boundary wall and hedging will be removed to create parking spaces, a large open frontage with ‘porous tarmac’ as a surface creates a very suburban feel and leads to a loss of enclosure. Whilst other properties on the row have visibility splays they also have a hard boundary - with fencing and planting or the small hedge banks which helps create character. I therefore think that the frontage / open boundary is a negative impact and does not preserve or enhance the setting of the conservation area. The house design is reasonable but I do think that the gable end facing the road brings the sense of height and dominance a lot closer to the boundary – other properties have ridges running parallel to the road and set further into the plot. My feeling is that the resulting appearance will therefore look more dominant and ‘busier’ in the plot than is ideal. Orchard Jeffreys is a very good quality property in the conservation area lying to the north. It faces towards this plot and whilst it is a reasonable distance away from the boundary I think that the proximity of the new house to the boundary along with the additional height and a very plain elevation with one obscured window will detract from its setting, albeit a private one.
Summary
The plot is not in the conservation area but I find that the development proposed does not ‘preserve or enhance’ it’s wider setting and in fact creates a degree of less than substantial harm. For that reason I recommend refusal.
(vi) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: