Agenda item

All Members of the Committee declared personal interests in this application but in accordance with Standing Order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report, the officer drew the Committee's attention to the consultant architect's reply to the consultation and to the comments of the Ancient Monuments' Society, both of which had been circulated after the agenda despatch.  The officer also reported that a letter of objection had been received expressing concerns at the modern approach taken by the architect.  The Environment Agency had not submitted any comments prior to the meeting.  However, it was noted that it had not objected to the previous application on this site.  The County Council as highway authority had not submitted its formal comments also.  In relation to an earlier application, the County Council had asked for the access road to the site to be improved.  However, the previous application had been for three dwellings rather than one. 

Mike Jenkins spoke on behalf of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, raising concerns that the proposed development was situated very close to the historic park and gardens of the Manor House and close to Listed barns in the historic centre of the village.  He believed the proposed dwelling was not in keeping with the area by virtue of its design and materials, which would be incongruous and inappropriate.  The development would also be against policies in the County Structure Plan and the Local Plan.  The design also challenged the dovecote.  He considered that the modern design would be able to be seen from the village green in winter.  He urged the Committee to preserve the heart of the village and refuse the application. 

Mr A Warne, the applicant, made a statement in support of the application.  He suggested that the development would secure the future of the dovecote, preserving its interior and exterior.  The site was sufficiently far from the Manor House and was surrounded by trees, so it would be invisible from the road and the village green.  The development would also remove a derelict tennis court.  The design had not attracted any objections from English Heritage or the Environment Agency. 

The Local Member spoke against the application, disliking the design of the glass elements of the house.  He asked that it be referred back for further consideration.  Two storeys would not be objectionable as long as the design blended in.  He urged caution in designing new build adjacent to historic buildings, believing that a lasting design was needed.  He reported that further applications were in the pipeline in this area and urged that these were considered along with the application from the Abbey. 

The Chair reported that each application had to be determined on its own merits and not in conjunction with others. 

The Committee was largely in support of the application, noting that no objections had been received from English Heritage and that the consultant architect had supported the design.  The Listed dovecote would be preserved as part of the application and would be brought back into use; this was welcomed.  Some Members thought that the modern house design next to the Listed dovecote was a good design but there was some dissent from this view.  However, Members did not support widening the access road in this location; this was considered inappropriate. 

By 13 votes to 2, it was

RESOLVED   

that authority to approve applications SUT/570/14 and SUT/570/15-LB be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to

(1)                           the receipt of the formal comments from the County Council as highways authority and the Environment Agency; and

(2)                           the conditions set out in the report.