Agenda item

Mr C Pappenheim made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding the development being in the Conservation Area and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proximity of two Grade II listed buildings; the impact on Chapel House, a listed building which was not referred to in the Officer’s comments or on the application; adverse impact; the extension being due south and two storeys high; overshadowing; environmental concerns; proximity to Chapel House which was not shown on the plans; the rear corners of Chapel House and the proposal being only 2 feet away from each other; adverse impact on the character of the area; the hard-standing spoiling the setting of the cottage and green space; car parking; vehicle movements and manoeuvring; the adverse impact of the large parking area; inadequate access; and pedestrian and highway safety.  He commented that the danger could be mitigated by restricting the number of car parking spaces to tow.  He stated that the parking area had been created recently and he noted that in the report it was stated that it was substandard.

Mr Logie had been due to make a statement objecting to the application but he declined to do so.

Mr C D Farrar-Hockley made a statement objecting to the application.  Speaking on behalf of residents he raised concerns regarding the extensive consultation undertaken across the village which had led to a village plan which included the maintenance of the village anglo saxon ring and that not mentioned of this was included in the report; retention of the green space; adverse impact of the Conservation Area; the car parking space being disproportionate in size; the need to ask the County Engineer to reconsider his comments; pedestrian safety it being noted that this was a single track road; the report containing factual errors and lack of information; proximity; overshadowing; no reference in the report to Chapel House and timing of the application being unfortunate.

One Member commented that he agreed with the comments made by the two speakers.  He explained that he had visited the site and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Chapel House it being considered that this enormous extension would severely adversely impact on the amenity of Chapel House by way of size, over dominance, over shadowing and loss of light.  He commented that the extension to the south of Chapel House would encapsulate the entire back ground of Chapel House.  Furthermore, he considered that the car parking did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Another Member commented that he had specifically taken an interest in this application at the request of one of the local Members who was not on the Development Control Committee.  He expressed concern regarding the adverse impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area and agreed that the car parking would not enhance the area. He commented that the access could be used for further access into the site and that he had concerns regarding use of a sub-standard access in this way.

Other Members agreed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Chapel House and also that the access was dangerous, although it was noted that the County Engineer had not recommended refusal. However, it was noted that the County Engineer had described the access as substandard and it was considered that a further comment on this should be sought to clarify this.  The Officers undertook to seek clarification from the CountyEngineer.

One Member commented on further uses of the site, but the Officers clarified that the potential future intentions of the applicant were not material considerations.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that application EHE 19314/2 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to include the adverse impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area and on  Chapel House.