Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and ancillary buildings and replacement with new two storey oak framed dwelling.

Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and ancillary buildings and replacement with new two storey oak framed dwelling.

The Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         I regret that there is an error in the report.  This has not been updated to include the comment from the Council’s Housing Inspector and further comment from the Conservation Manager.  [Both comments were summarised in the schedule of updates circulated at the meeting]

·         Further correspondence has been received from the agent, as follows:

We believe that the report (from Private Sector Housing) in itself is not relevant to our application on this site.  As agent, we have submitted numerous applications for replacement dwellings in accordance with Policy H7 of the UDP.  It does not appear to state nor have we ever been asked to implement this type of survey as a condition when seeking approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling and its replacement.  We therefore feel that the conclusion of the report is of no relevance in determining our application on this site.

The Principal Planning Officer also provided the following officer comments:

§         The policy and conservation issues are already outlined in the report.  The other issue raised above is with regard to the condition of the building.  PPG 15 emphasises that consent should not be given for the demolition of such a building without clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use or find a viable new use.  The application was not accompanied by any evidence relating to the condition of the dwelling, and consequently the advice of the Housing Officer was sought and the Conservation Manager also adds to this point.  It does not appear, purely with respect to its condition, that there is any necessity for the building to be removed.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, the principal points included:

s         Hampton Bishop residents considered the existing building to be an eyesore, there were a number of buildings of different periods and styles in the area, and the replacement would not be prominent when approaching the church.

s         Although the building might have an interesting core, the site was in an unfortunate state and the quality of the building was poor.

s          She considered that demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement was acceptable, particularly given the need to elevate floor levels to minimise flood risk.

s         As Hampton Bishop was the only parish with a flood evacuation plan for the entire area, appropriate weight needed to be given to the comments of the Environment Agency.  The Chairman noted that only a summary of Environment Agency correspondence had been included in the report and a longer extract was read out which indicated that there would be a reduction in flood risk through the replacement of the existing building.

s         It was noted that officers considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area but local residents did not share this view and the parish council fully supported the applications.

s         It was noted that the Conservation Manager – Building Conservation had commented that the proposed design was a '…banal mishmash of various elements…' but the Chairman felt that this comment was more suited to the existing building.

s         The Chairman considered the scheme to be an improvement which would complement the area and enhance the general impression of visitors to Hampton Bishop.  She added that residents disputed officer comments that the existing building was '…of local importance…' and '…the loss of such an important building would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area…'.

s         The views of the Parish Council were considered particularly important and the Chairman felt that the applications were acceptable.

Councillor SJ Robertson wished her thanks to be recorded to the Planning Officer for his assistance at a recent site inspection.  Councillor Robertson said that, after significant thought, she felt unable to support the application and commented on the need to retain older buildings in rural villages.

Councillor PA Andrews recognised the need to retain a broad mixture of architectural styles but said that the building in question was in a poor state and might be beyond economic repair.  However, reservations were expressed about the proposed replacement and she felt that design elements of the existing building could be incorporated into the new design where appropriate.

Councillor DB Wilcox said that he was concerned that the contents of the six letters of support from local residents were not summarised in the report, unlike the two letters of objection, making it appear unbalanced.  He said that he supported the conservation of buildings which made a positive contribution but considered the existing dwelling to be a patchwork of different styles and quality of construction.  Councillor Wilcox clarified that he, rather than officers, had requested input from the Council's Housing Inspector given issues raised in the original report.  He noted the importance of Policy H7 (Housing in the Countryside Outside Settlements) and felt that the enlargement in volume compared to the original dwelling should not be more than 50%.  He proposed that officers be authorised to approve the applications subject to conditions considered necessary, in consultation with the Chairman/Local Ward Member, particularly in respect of materials, appearance and height.

Councillor NL Vaughan supported the views of local residents and felt that some of the officer comments in the report were subjective.

Councillor MAF Hubbard said that buildings such as this gave character and a sense of place to villages.  He felt that there was a case for retention and supported the recommendation of refusal; he added that repair works combined with a suitable and sympathetic extension might provide an opportunity to enhance living standards.

Councillor PJ Edwards recognised the views of the Local Ward Member and the community but noted the need for consistent application of planning policies, particularly Policy H7, and he felt that there was merit in retaining buildings such as Church Villa.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that the existing building was unlisted, adding that the community would have pursued this actively if the building was considered to be of particular local importance, and this application provided an opportunity to reduce flood risk.  It was also noted that Hampton Bishop was not a defined settlement in the UDP and a replacement dwelling needed to be comparable in size but Councillor Lloyd-Hayes felt that on balance the scheme could be supported.

Councillor GFM Dawe said that Church Villa was a vernacular building of great character and commented on the need to retain smaller dwellings.  He also said that the replacement was not compatible with Policy H7, the scale of the new building would diminish the character of the area and he queried the impact on flood risk.  Other Members also spoke in favour of the retention of the existing building.

Councillor DW Greenow said that he was disappointed with report and disagreed that the existing building was of local importance.  He felt that, although the design of the replacement building could be improved, the application was acceptable.

In response to comments by Members, the Central Team Leader noted the importance of parish council comments but reminded Members that the authority had to take a wider strategic view.  He acknowledged that the letters of support could have been summarised more fully and that some Members disagreed with some of the officer comments and terminology used.  However, officers considered the planning policy implications to be clear-cut and he re-iterated the main issues in the determination of the applications and the sequential tests that needed to be applied.

The Chairman read out further extracts from Environment Agency correspondence and emphasised the need to mitigate flood risk.  She said that the house might have provided adequate accommodation in the past but it could not be considered to be suitable by modern standards.

RESOLVED:

In respect of DCCE2008/2898/F

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal would involve the demolition of a building which is considered to be of local importance.  The local planning authority is not satisfied that the building is in such a condition that would require demolition.  Having regard to the sensitivity of the location, the loss of such an important building would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies HBA6, HBA7 and HBA8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

2.      The replacement dwelling is not comparable in size and scale with the existing building and the development is therefore contrary to Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

3.      The replacement dwelling by virtue of its design, scale and mass would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of both the site and the Conservation Area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DR1 and HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

In respect of DCCE2008/2902/C

That Conservation Area Consent be refused for the following reason:

1.      The proposal would involve the demolition of a building which is considered to be of local importance.  The local planning authority is not satisfied that the building is in such a condition that would require demolition.  Having regard to the sensitivity of the location, the loss of such an important building would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies HBA6, HBA7 and HBA8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and the Historic Environment.