Demolition of existing buildings, excluding the Grade II listed Tank House, a small lodge and associated substation, and the erection of 25 new dwellings comprising 12 purpose designed units for older residents, 4 open market units and 9 affordable units, plus a retail unit and 46 bed nursing home.  

The application was approved, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He commented that officers agreed with the principle of the proposed development.  However, the harm caused by the proposed loss of the locally important original ‘H’ shaped bottling plant building was of great concern and so significant with regard to the balancing exercise required by the National Planning Policy Framework that the application should be refused.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr E Nash, the Applicant’s architect spoke in support of the Scheme.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AW Johnson and CHN Attwood, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Johnson commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had raised objections to aspects of the particular scheme but was not opposed to the use of the site for housing.

·         There had been only two letters of objection, mainly on design grounds.

·         There were benefits associated with the Scheme including: new houses with a proportion being affordable housing, the prospect of increased trade for the village shop helping to sustain it, and a nursing home.

·         The applicants had made a number of changes to the Scheme to meet the Parish Council’s requirements

·         The principal objection in the report seemed to be the proposal not to retain the former bottling plant building. However, whilst the bottling plant building was a heritage asset he was not aware of any local public wish to retain it.

·         He considered that the local community was in support of the development and the fact that few objections had been received supported this assessment.

Councillor Attwood supported Councillor Johnson’s comments.  He reiterated that the Parish Council had had no objection in principle.  However, there were a number of concerns about the detail of the design and the street scene in this important approach to the village, including the plan that the back gardens of 4 properties faced the street which was considered potentially unappealing.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The local community supported the much needed residential development that the Scheme would provide.

·         Colwall had developed in the period in which the bottling plant was built and the building had local significance.  The report listed a number of bodies who supported the retention of the bottling plant building.  The building had merit and could be retained and converted for other uses.  Consideration also needed to be given to the setting of the Tank House which had been listed by English Heritage.  A use for the Tank House building should also be identified.

·         The bottling plant had been a magnificent industrial building but it did not lend itself to conversion.  It had been compromised by unsympathetic development and it now fronted an industrial estate.

·         It was asked if features of the building could be preserved in a museum or other setting.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that if features were considered worthy of preservation the building should be retained.  It was only in the case of major national schemes that he was aware of buildings being preserved in the manner being suggested.

·         The site was classified as being for general industrial use and the proposed loss of employment land was questioned.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Johnson reiterated the local support for the Scheme.

A motion that the application should be refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation was lost.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for the following principal reasons and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to determine conditions together with the Section 106 agreement: the benefits of the scheme including the provision of sustainable housing in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and a nursing home, to meet local need, outweighed the harm caused by the loss of a heritage asset which has been compromised by unsympathetic development, and the loss of employment land.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.25 am and 11.32 am.)