Agenda item

The Area Planning Officer reported that Counsel’s Opinion on whether the demolition works already undertaken at the site were lawful, was still awaited.  In this regard, she advised that in the event that planning permission was granted, such approval would need to be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) subject to receipt of the opinion.  She further reported that a late representation had been received from the owner of a neighbouring property raising concerns over the longevity of the gable end and the choice of materials to be used.  The neighbour was concerned that although the roof tiles remained on site, the bricks had been removed.

Mr H Marsh, on behalf of the Parish Council, made a statement in respect of the application raising issues relating to matters already covered in the report.  He explained that the Parish Council had accepted that the conditions attached to the previous consent were sufficient to protect the general layout of Penn House in its historic form.  However, the resulting difference in interpretation of that consent had caused unprecedented communication from local people to the Parish Council.  It had not been made clear to the Parish Council that it was a retrospective application, despite the virtual disappearance of the building and the assertion in the application that the original building had been built after 1948 was not the case.  He commented that had the Council been aware that the application had been made for the total demolition of the building in the heart of the village conservation area, leaving only one wall standing, it would have been robustly opposed.  In this regard, the Parish Council objected to the process leading to the granting of the consent.  However, in the circumstances, the Parish Council did not object to the rebuilding of a house closely resembling the one previously given consent.  He requested that the public pavement in Dog lane was fully reinstated to its original state on completion of the works.  Finally, he hoped that the matter would be resolved as soon as possible.

One member asked that the white metal railings, that previously enclosed the front garden, be reinstated.  Furthermore he sympathised with the Parish Council views regarding the window design, use of reclaimed tiles and the reinstatement of the public pavement.   Finally, he asked what action the Council could take if Counsel’s Opinion was that the demolition works were unlawful.   In response, the Area Planning Officer advised that if Counsel’s Opinion was that the demolition works were unlawful, the application would come back to the Committee.  The retention of the railings had been conditioned on the previous consent and should have been included in the recommendation before the Committee.  Finally, a materials condition could be included to require a sample panel to be erected on the site.

Another Member reminded the Committee that Conservation Area consent implied that the development proposed should improve and enhance the area and therefore it was important that extreme care was taken with the choice of materials.  Furthermore, he supported the concerns raised by the Parish Council representative regarding the planning process in this instance in terms of the confusion caused by the descriptions submitted with the drawings accompanying the application.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the plans accompanying the application indicated that all walls would be brick facing and in any event planning permission would be require for the use of render, as that would be considered to be a form of cladding.  It was suggested that an informative be included to this effect.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that authority to approve applications CHD/713/7 and CHD/713/8-CA be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning & Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to:-

(1)               the receipt of Counsel’s Opinion;

(2)       the conditions set out in the report, together with further conditions requiring the retention of the white metal railings enclosing the front garden and a materials panel to be erected on site and an informative stressing that good quality appropriate materials, including the use of brick for the facing walls will be expected in this prominent location.