Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Sawyers of Kingsland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Hicks, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor WLS Bowen, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        Highfield Close was of a consistent and harmonious design with which the proposal would be at odds.

·        It seemed a shame to demolish a satisfactory dwelling.  The demolition work would create noise and disruption.

·        The principle of development on the site was clearly established by the presence of the existing bungalow.  It was acknowledged that the design of the proposed house had regard to environmental considerations.  However, there was concern about the modern and startling nature of the design and the colours.  The design included aluminium and wooden windows and a metal roof.

·        The proposal did not reflect the main buildings in the conservation area and did not preserve or enhance that area.  The application should be refused.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Several members expressed the view that the design was incongruous and there was concern too about the scale and mass of the development which was out of character in that location in a prominent position on the corner.  It did not preserve and enhance the conservation area.

·        Some other members considered the proposal did have merit and noted the comments of the Building Conservation Officer who had no objection.

The Lead Development Manager commented that a number of other schemes of modern design in established settings had been approved.  Officers considered the proposal was satisfactory.  He highlighted the comments of the Building Conservation Officer at paragraph 4.3 of the report that the proposal would be more sensitive to the elements that enhance the conservation area than the dwelling it was proposed to replace and cautioned against refusing the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the design was incongruous and inappropriate in that location.

A motion proposed by Councillor Seldon and seconded by Councillor Williams that the application be refused was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

Councillor Cutter proposed and Councillor Guthrie seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 5 votes in favour, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         A01 - Time Limit for Commencement (Full Permission)

2.         B02 - Development in Accordance with Approved Plans and Materials

3.         I16 - Restriction of Hours during Construction

4.         F08 - No Conversion of Garage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168