Agenda item

            That Listed building consent be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21 July 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was reported for refusal based on the impact on the Listed Building.  An application for the erection of a two storey extension was approved in 2011 and this work had been carried out. However, during construction, the applicant also undertook the demolition of a single storey part-glazed porch structure to the side of the property.  He replaced this with a brick built single storey extension with a flat roof and glazed lantern light above and replaced an original first floor window with a differently proportioned one, without the necessary consent. 

            Mr. D. Fitzsimon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the replacement extension had been carried out sympathetically with the rest of the dwelling and the guttering had been replaced with cast iron guttering.  It became apparent that the porch was beyond repair and it was replaced by an extension that the applicant thought was an improvement to the property.  Officers raised concern about the three pane window which was replaced with a two pane window but this replicated what was already in place.       

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the applicant had been through the process of what was acceptable on a listed building in his application for the erection of the two storey extension to the rear of the property and therefore had full knowledge of what needed to take place.  The applicant had then replaced the single storey extension in a way which Councillor Bithell felt was unacceptable and was a flagrant abuse of the system as planning permission and listed building consent had not been sought.  He felt that there was no alternative but to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with the comments of Councillor Bithell and said that the owner of the listed building was aware of work that could or could not be carried out on such a building.  He commented on the window but agreed that the application should be refused.  Councillor Derek Butler said that full compliance with policy was required on applications for amendments to listed buildings which the applicant had not done.  He felt that CADW should be made aware of the works that had been undertaken on the property. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether the design of the replacement was being considered and whether the previous single storey extension had listed building status.  In response, the Development Manager said that on this application the main consideration was the impact of the work on the character and features of the listed building.  When considering the planning application there was a need to consider the appropriateness of the extension in terms of its scale and character, in relation to the character of the existing dwelling.  It was an offence to carry out works on a listed building without permission and it was the recommendation of officers that the extension damaged the listed building.  He advised that if this application was refused, Members should also consider refusing the next item on the agenda which was for the planning application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager commented on the impact of the single storey extension on the listed building and reiterated earlier comments that it was not acceptable.  The applicant had built the extension onto the back of the building without consent and he commented on the importance of retaining the original window which was part of the fabric of the building. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that the agent had indicated that the extension was an improvement to the property.  However, on the advice of the Conservation Officer in the report, he reiterated his proposal of refusal of the application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manageradvised that as the application had been refused, it would not need to be referred to CADW.              

            RESOLVED:

            That Listed building consent be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).