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.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A further e-mail had been received from the applicants stating that, based upon information on Tarrington within the ‘Royal Commission of Historic Houses of England 1932’, the nearby arch at The Vine was in place in the late 18th Century and the moat around Tarrington Court was much larger than first thought which may have prevented the main access being to the north.

§               The Officer comments noted that there remained no definitive historical information to identify the original access arrangements.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, drew attention to a number of points:

·               Although consideration of the applications had been deferred at the last meeting for further negotiations with the applicants and the Sub-Committee had emphasised a need to ensure that the Local Ward Member was involved, she had not been involved in any discussions or meetings that had taken place.  It was noted that the report stated that the applicants 'wish the applications to be determined in their present form'.

·               The Chairman expressed concerns about the retrospective nature of the works carried out and commented on discrepancies in the timing of the works.  She also expressed concerns about inconsistencies and supposition in the comments of the Senior Conservation Officer.

·               The Chairman did not feel that an e-mail and letter received from the applicants added any additional relevant information material to the determination and disputed a suggestion that an area adjacent to the wall was historically a village pound.  It was acknowledged that planning policies did not specify that public views of a listed building must be maintained but the Chairman considered the design of the arch to be poor and, along with increase in the height of the wall, did not complement the setting of Tarrington Court.

·               It was noted that the Sub-Committee could not make 'split decisions' on elements of planning applications and, therefore, the Chairman proposed that the applications be refused.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the proposals had resulted in differences of opinion in the locality but she felt that it was the mixture of features that made villages interesting and considered these applications to be acceptable.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the arch was incongruous and noted that the applicants had not chosen to amend the proposals in response to the concerns expressed at the last meeting.  He considered that the applications should be refused as being contrary to policies S7 (Natural and historic heritage) and HBA4 (Setting of listed buildings).  He added that the arch was a poor substitute for the traditional Herefordshire gate that it replaced.

In response to questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

s                The works in respect of the rebuilding of the wall had stopped following the enforcement investigation.

s                There was evidence of a moat on the inside of the wall but details, such as the size and depth, were unclear.

s                The applicants had assumed that letters/emails of support in respect of a previous application had been carried over to this application.  Therefore, once the position had been identified, additional correspondence had been received following the site inspection which largely duplicated that received in 2008.

s                The proposals had to be considered on their own merits, particularly given the lack of definitive evidence regarding the design and position of the original entrance.  Attention was drawn to the comments of the Conservation Manager.

In response to a question from Councillor WJ Walling, the Northern Team Leader commented on the risk to developers of enforcement action being taken to remedy authorised works if retrospective planning permission was refused.

Councillor RI Matthews noted that there was some confusion about the planning history and order of events but Members had to consider the proposals before them and he felt that the arch represented an improvement and complemented the area.

Councillor MAF Hubbard drew attention to images of the entrance before and after the recent works and he considered that the arch did have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building.

Councillor KS Guthrie, referring to the comments of the Conservation Manager, questioned how the wall could be reinstated to its presumed original height without documentary evidence and supported the views of the Local Ward Member.

The Chairman commented on research undertaken by local residents in respect of the original entrance.

Councillor AP Taylor noted that the gateway was likely to have been in situ when the building was listed.

Councillor ACR Chappell felt it unlikely that there would have been a single approach to the house in the past and, although noting the retrospective nature, considered the applications to be acceptable.

RESOLVED:

That

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

The recently constructed stone wall and associated arch along with the proposed raising in height of the remaining wall with particular regard to their scale, massing, location and design will adversely affect the setting of Tarrington Court.  As such the development is contrary to Policies S7 and HBA4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Northern Team Leader advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation given the reasons put forward by Members.]