Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 June 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The Development Manager detailed the background to the application and said that the application was the first of two relating to this former farmhouse, which was designated as a building of local interest (BLI).  He referred to Policy HE4 which contained a strong presumption against the  demolition of BLIs and that any alterations needed to be done sensitively so that the character of the building was retained.  He also highlighted policy HSG12 which covered extensions to dwellings. He referred to the history of proposals and negotiations and said that the application before committee proposed to raise the ridge height of the existing building by 300mm. with two storey and single storey extensions to the rear.  The percentage increase in floorspace amounted to 115% over the existing dwelling.  If the outbuildings were retained and were taken into account in the calculation, it would still result in an increase of approx.80%.  He reminded Members that the indicator referred to in policy HSG12 for increases in footprints was 50%.  He added that officers were prepared to allow an increase in the region of 80% if other issues with the application were addressed.  However, the current recommendation was for refusal as the application compromised the character of the BLI.  He was confident that an acceptable scheme could be achieved and added that officers were prepared to continue to negotiate with the applicant to seek an agreement.     

            Mr. J. Paul, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the property had been vacant for four years and the applicant had engaged in negotiation about a scheme.  He raised concern at the designation of the BLI which had come as a surprise and which had been contested by the applicant.  He had also put forward an amended scheme.  His client wished to put a replacement dwelling on the site and the extension application was only because of the BLI designation.  He disagreed with the reported percentage increase figures and said that the increased footprint was only 15%.  Pre-application guidance had indicated that the caravan and outbuildings could be included in the calculation and that it would still comply with policy.  He felt that the increase in the ridge height of the roof by 300mm would not have an impact.  The property was currently empty and the proposal would be more practical for the family.  There was visually no difference to what was there now but the proposal would be an enhancement and he felt that it was a scheme that Members could support.                  

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.              

            Councillor W.O. Thomas said that the officer had indicated that they were nearly in agreement about a scheme and proposed that the application be deferred to allow for further discussion.  The officer referred to sketch plans he had prepared which showed how the scheme might be amended to be acceptable.  He disputed the figures which Mr. Paul had put forward but said that they were prepared to continue negotiation on the basis of the amendments which had been identified.  Councillor Thomas then withdrew his proposal for deferment. 

            The local Member, Councillor C. Dolphin, spoke in support of the application which he felt would be a lovely family home.  He said that the BLI designation had come as a surprise to the applicant.  The raising of the ridge height by 300mm would be insignificant, there would not be any noticeable difference and objections had not been made by neighbours.  He felt that there was not much of the original building left, and the current structure was completely out of character.  The property was a small two bedroomed dwelling which was unsuitable for a family and so needed a significant extension scheme.  He said that the proposal did conform to policy including HSG4, and on the issue of the calculation of the increase in the floorspace of 115%, he said that this depended on how the figures were calculated.  He asked the Committee to support the application.

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the building, which was an early 19^th century farm house, had been designated as a BLI and this was the basis upon which officers were prepared to discuss and negotiate with the applicant to see if a proposal which was acceptable in policy terms could be agreed.  He said that officers’ calculation of the increase of 115% in the floorspace was correct and was a significant extension, which in terms of scale and design was damaging to the BLI.  It was the applicant who was pressing for a decision and he asked Members to refuse the application to allow further discussion with the applicant to take place. 

            In response to a comment from Councillor R.B. Jones on the BLI designation, the Planning Strategy Manager said that he did not have the details to hand but that the issue had been to court as the applicant had disputed the designation, and the court had accepted that due process had been followed. 

            Councillor D. Butler said that he felt that officers had been very generous in allowing over 50% increase in the footprint.  He felt that the outbuildings could not be seen from the front and that fact would help it to be developed into a family home.  However, he was concerned about the increase in the roof height.  He felt that a scheme could be negotiated between officers and the applicant and his agent but the roof height should be retained. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell referred to the challenge of renovating a property of this age but felt that agreement could be reached through negotiation and that refusal at this time was correct.        

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.