Agenda item

All Members of the Committee had each declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted the earlier receipt of a petition containing 56 signatures objecting to the proposed development at Penn House. 

Further to the report the Committee noted that the proposed development of a single garage had been omitted from the scheme.  Its removal had caused concern to the neighbour as it would no longer screen the extension to Penn House, in particular, the glazed first floor extension from their property. 

Peter Scatchard made a statement on behalf of all those that wrote objecting to the application.  He believed that there were two major problems: there were gross inaccuracies and there had been improper consultation.  He believed the barn should not be increased in height and commented that the catslide roof could be seen from several properties.  He objected to the last minute alteration of the plans.  The garage would have provided screening to the neighbouring property but had now been omitted.  The huge increase in glazed area was unnecessary, inappropriate development that would result in overlooking of neighbouring property.  Given the inaccuracies and changes, he urged the Committee to refuse the application and seek a new application with accurate plans and proper consultation.  He believed that objectors were being prejudiced and their right to object to the amended plans had been removed.

Ken Dijksman spoke as a supporter on behalf of the applicant.  He understood the local objections but reminded the Committee that change was permitted in Conservation Areas.  Discussions on this application had taken approximately one year to get to this stage.  It had been a constructive process; the design had changed to reduce the impact on the Conservation Area and on neighbouring residents.  The requirement to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance had been met and the objectors had commented on the amendment to the plans, removing the garage.  Accurate drawings were now before the Committee. 

The Local Member believed that the heart of Childrey's Conservation Area and Penn House needed conserving.  He was concerned at the details in the application and process.  Two applications had been withdrawn but the new application had not been consulted upon.  The garage had been removed and there was no re-consultation.  There was much local concern at the potential for overlooking and the loss of privacy for the neighbours, especially from the proposed glazed wall on the first floor.  He urged the Committee to defer the application and ask for amended plans with proper consultation. 

Members of the Committee also expressed concern at the glazed wall proposed on the first floor of Penn House and the potential this had to cause overlooking of adjacent properties.  Concerns were also expressed at the Juliet window proposed and it was suggested that the two dormers windows on the west elevation should be roof lights to avoid overlooking.  Members were also concerned at the proposed increase in height of the annex.  It was felt that the design neither conserved nor enhanced the house. 

It was proposed by Councillor Roger Cox and seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director to approve the application, subject to conditions.  This was put to the vote and was lost by 8 votes to 7. 

It was then proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson and seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere that the application be refused on the grounds that it neither conserved nor enhanced the Conservation Area.  This was put to the vote and was lost by 8 votes to 7. 

It was then proposed by Councillor Roger Cox and seconded by Councillor Tessa Ward that the Deputy Director be delegated authority to approve the application, subject to the first floor glazing being amended and to negotiations with the applicant to seek a reduction in the height of the annex.  Before this motion was put to the vote, it was suggested that further conditions should be considered such as painting the hand railings white at the front of the property, and requiring new drawings showing details of the windows.  It was noted that condition no.5 in the report covered these details. 

By way of an amendment it was proposed by the Chair that the applications be deferred to enable Officers to negotiate with the applicants on the matters raised by the Committee and to consult on the amended application.  The application would then be brought back to the Committee. Councillors Roger Cox and Tessa Ward as proposer and seconder of the Motion agreed to withdraw their Motion in support of this proposal. 

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED   

that applications CHD/713/5 and CHD/713/6-CA be deferred to enable negotiations with the applicant to reduce the amount of glazing on the first floor of Penn House; to consider alternatives to the Juliet window; to reduce the potential for overlooking, and to reduce the height of the annex.