Agenda item

The Committee was advised that the comments of the County Engineer were still awaited and therefore should the Committee be minded to approved the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Chief Executive pending receipt of those comments.  Furthermore, the Committee was advised that condition 7 set out in the report should be amended to refer to units 1 to 4.

Mr C Whatmore made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council commenting that this development should not be seen in isolation.  He referred to other applications in the locality and expressed concern regarding the loss of this business use which he considered was truly local and reduced the need for travel to work.  He expressed concern at the proposal in terms of its Impact on the street scene; adverse impact on the local water sys in that the existing water pressure was unreliable; on street parking which would adverse impact on the walking bus and on the movements of agricultural vehicles; and car parking.  He welcomed the restrictions on alterations and extensions to the dwellings questioning whether these were the same as the removal of permitted development rights.  He commented that additional car parking spaces were proposed to the rear but details were unclear. He asked that should the Committee be minded to approve the application the court yard car parking space should be retained for the lifetime of the development and that no plans should be approved which did not show the car parking space to the rear.  Finally, he requested that the works should be carried out in their entirety and not piecemeal as and when tenants vacated premises.

Mr I Hope made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  In particular he expressed concern regarding on street car parking; uncertainty regarding the number of car parking spaces to the rear of the office building; the agreed allocation of those spaces; lack of a footpath in the main road and pedestrian safety should there be further on street parking.  He suggested that consideration of the applications should be deferred until a plan was produced showing the car parking layout.

Mr S Barratt, the beneficial owner of the site and landlord made a statement in support of the applications commenting that the proposal would address concerns raised regarding car parking.  He suggested that the need for parking associated with the proposal would be less that the current use.  He advised that the site benefited from a water storage system and therefore concerns raised regarding wter pressure were not relevant.  He referred to comments made regarding allocated aprking stating that there was a right of way on foot only and no allocated parking. Finally, he emphasised that parking to the rear was not an issue.

The Committee was advised of the views of the local Member who had suggested that given that the commercial units had been empty he could see no reasons to resist a change of use.  He noted that there were grounds for gardens which would not be out of keeping with other houses in the area.  He commented that any noise would be no more or less than other developments in the village.  He considered that the wall fronting London Road and the roof tiles above it were important features in the Conservation Area and should remain intact. Finally, he considered that should the Committee be minded to approve the applications, an informative should be added to advise the applicant that the Council would be unlikely to grant planning permission for dormers in the roof.

In response to the comments made suggesting an Informative indicating that any dormer windows for the low level units would be unlikely to be granted planning permission, it was noted that this was not considered necessary at this stage.

Members spoke in support of the application but in view of the concerns raised and the uncertainty regarding the parking it was considered that it would be reasonable for the applicant to demonstrate that the car parking could be achieved. However, the Officers advised that the car parking area was outside of the application site and there was no reason to doubt the comments of the applicant’s agent that 6 or 7 cars could be accommodated in the rear parking area.  It was reported that for one bed let units it would be reasonable to expect 1 car parking space only.  Therefore there would be 6 spaces for the rest of development which was more than sufficient.  However, notwithstanding this the Officer could see no harm in requesting that the car parking be shown.

In response to a question raised regarding imposing a condition restricting the parking, it was explained that such a condition would be difficult to enforce.

In response to further comments made, the Officers advised that the porch was insignificant and therefore it was not considered necessary to seek an amended design and that in terms of the provisions for rubbish disposal, a condition was recommended to address this for the holiday lets.

By 17 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that the Chief Executive be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application BLE/19377 subject to: -

(1)               the comments of the CountyEngineer and him raising no objection;

(2)               the conditions set out in the report with condition 7 being amended to read as follows: -

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (or any other order revoking or re-enacting that Order) units 1 to 4 shall be used solely for holiday accommodation or serviced accommodation and for no other purpose whatsoever and shall not be continually occupied by the same persons for a period exceeding 28 days in any 90 day period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.”

(3)        clarification of the car parking arrangements and the receipt of a plan showing these.

(b)        that the Chief Executive be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application BLE/19377/1 - LB subject to: -

(1)        the comments of the County Engineer and him raising no objection; and

(2)        the conditions set out in the report.