Agenda item

The Committee noted that the plans for applications SUT/4403/5 and SUT/4403/6 and a letter of objection had been circulated separately. 

Further to the report the Officers advised that they considered that notwithstanding the comment of the County Engineer, a passing bay on All Saints Lane would have a harmful impact on the lane in the Conservation Area. 

In addition, the Committee was advised that comments from the Rights of Way Officer had been received raising concerns as to whether the applicant had a right of way; whether the applicant was liable for the maintenance of the lane; objection if the width of the path was being reduced and concern that there should be no storage of materials on the footpath during construction.

Furthermore, the Committee was advised that a letter had been received from a local resident raising concerns regarding discrepancies in the location plans.   The Officers reported that the concerns identified were valid although because the whole site was within the same ownership this was not considered a reason to object to the applications.  It was reported that the resident had also referred to the footprint of the new dwelling being larger than the existing building on the site and that this neither preserved nor enhanced the area.  Concerns were also raised regarding the patio area; proximity of the proposal to other buildings; car parking layout and over development of the site.

The Officers reported that the applicant had responded to the comments raised, indicating that the land was all in the same ownership; the stone was in keeping with the area and the proposal would improve visual amenity; there would be limited impact on the amenity of the neighbours due to the location and orientation of the proposal and that the closest point would be single storey.  Reference had also been made to the views of the County Engineer.

Mr M Jenkins made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically raised concerns regarding impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area; adverse impact on the environment; the setting of a precedent for further development along All Saints Lane; demolition of an old stone wall; inadequate parking provision for the business activities of Bekynton House and the possibility of a separate unit being used for additional accommodation for the bed and breakfast business.  He asked the Committee to have regard to the site being small.

Mr Hignell made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the inappropriateness of developing this site.  He reported that the larger site area had been registered with the land registry as one site.  He advised that the site plan was approximately 16% larger.  He was concerned regarding the footprint of the building which was 3 times larger than the building to be removed. He reported that allowing a dwelling on such a footprint would be harmful to the Conservation Area contrary to legislation.  He questioned the remedies proposed for the likely harm of unneighbourliness.   He reported that there was a 7 m high gable wall sited only 5 metres from his sitting out area which he considered unreasonable.  He reported that vehicle parking was restricted already.  Finally, he expressed concern that the car port would become a separate dwelling.

Mrs Cornwall, the applicant made a statement in support of the applications.  She reported that no Member of the Parish Council had visited the enclosed site or canvassed the local neighbours.  She advised that she had consulted all the neighbours who were in support of the proposals.  She commented that there seemed to be some confusion regarding the Bed and Breakfast (B&B) business activity at Bekynton House explaining that the new dwelling would not be used as part of this.  She explained that the issue raised regarding car parking was irrelevant.  She reported that stone walls and hand made clay tiles would be used, helping to preserve the character and appearance of the area.  She clarified that the carport would be sited away from the boundary and that it would not be visible.  She reported that the additional space was required for a study and would not become a separate dwelling.  Finally, she argued that the lane was only lightly used.

Mrs G Foley, a neighbour made a statement advising that she supported the applications which had been sympathetically designed.

The local Member reported that he had discussed the issue of B&B with the applicant who had advised that the business activity was diminishing.  She had confirmed that it was not intended that the new dwelling would be used for B&B and he asked that this be so recorded in the minutes.  He commented that this issue had been a concern raised by a number of people.   He referred to planning matters expressing some concern regarding this development in this location.  He commented that within the Conservation Area there could be some building.  However, up to the Church the Lane was very rural in character and this needed to be preserved.

Some Members spoke in support of the applications commenting that the principle of housing on this site would be difficult to refuse.  It was suggested that there should be a condition added to prevent the car port becoming a separate dwelling.  It was further questioned whether a condition restricting the B&B activity should be imposed but it was confirmed that planning permission for a change of use would be required for this.  Reference was made to parking and it was agreed that the Officers should investigate the parking provision required for previous developments at Bekynton House which appeared not to have been implemented.  It was noted that the site was well screened; the proposal was sensitively designed and would not set a precedent.

By 16 votes to nil, with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that application SUT/4403/6 – CA be approved subject to the condition set out in the report;

(b)        that application SUT/4403/5 be approved subject to: -

(1)               the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)        a further condition to require that the accommodation within the car port studio remains ancillary to the main dwelling Bekynton House;

(3)        an informative to advise that should the owner wish to use the new premises as Bed and Breakfast accommodation, unless such Bed and Breakfast use is subsidiary and ancillary to the main residential use of the dwelling, Bekynton House planning permission would be required.

(c)        that the Officers be asked to investigate the parking provision required for previous developments at Bekynton House which appear not to have been implemented.