Retention of arch and rebuilding of wall.  Conversion of existing hay loft to flat in Coach House.  Build stable block.

Retention of arch and rebuilding of wall.  Conversion of existing hay loft to flat in Coach House.  Build stable block.

Details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

·               A further letter of objection had been received from Mr. Hodges of Ro-onica, Tarrington and the main points were summarised.

·               The officer comments included: 'Trellis fencing is unlikely to be acceptable.  There is no evidence of what existed originally in terms of the entrance and boundary treatment.  Ultimately, the application must be considered on its merits and is considered an acceptable means of enclosure for the site and setting of the listed building'.

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

§               The recent history of the site and the unauthorised construction of the arch and increase in height of the stone boundary wall.

§               Extracts of communications by the Senior Conservation Officer were read out, including comments about the height, style and detailing of the arch and wall additions being out of keeping with the existing wall.  However, it was noted that the latest comments reproduced in the agenda now considered this element to be acceptable.  The Chairman expressed concerns about apparent inconsistencies and supposition in the comments.

§               It was noted that the Parish Council and local residents had raised objections about the arch feature and the height of the wall, particularly given the impact on the setting and views of Tarrington Court.

§               Although there were no objections to the conversion of the existing hay loft and the building of a new stable block, the retention of the arch and rebuilding of the wall element was not considered acceptable and, therefore, it was proposed that the application be refused as being contrary to HBA4 (Setting of Listed Buildings) and PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).

The Senior Conservation Officer advised that the comments quoted regarding concerns about the height of the wall related to an earlier proposal.  He also advised that, ideally, the arch feature would be more rusticated and less formal but it was not felt that this matter was so significant as to substantiate refusal of the application.  It was acknowledged that the position of the original entrance was unclear but it was not considered that the revised gateway and access arrangements were unacceptable.

The Chairman commented that the current gateway access had been the main entrance to Tarrington Court for many years and the boundary wall was considered part of the heritage of the village.

Councillor PJ Edwards considered the style of the arch feature to be out of character with the listed building and the surroundings.  In response to a question, the Development Control Manager advised that the Sub-Committee had no statutory authority to make 'split decisions' on planning applications; it was noted that this was permitted in respect of advertisement consents.  Councillor Edwards suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to enable the applicants to reconsider the retention of the arch and the rebuilding of wall element.

Councillor RI Matthews supported the officer's appraisal and questioned whether a refusal of planning permission could be sustained on appeal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented on the impact of the proposals on the wider area, particularly on public views of Tarrington Court, and supported deferral.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes felt that there were a number of matters that needed to be clarified and urged officers to ensure that the Local Ward Member was involved in the ongoing discussions.

Councillor AM Toon questioned what could be achieved through deferral and suggested that the officers be authorised to find a solution, in consultation with the Local Ward Member.  The Development Control Manager, noting that the Sub-Committee had not raised objections to the proposed hay loft conversion and new stable block, said that a possible course of action would be to delegate authority to officers to approve the application subject to the withdrawal of the retention of arch and rebuilding of wall element from the proposal within 28 days.  Some Members commented on the potential merit of this approach but Councillor Edwards maintained his view that the application should be deferred.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning applications DCCE2009/0555/F and DCCE2009/0556/L be deferred for further negotiations with the applicant.