Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Fisher and Councillor Oliver.

There were none.

Councillor McCloskey had previously visited Brecon House and 37 Market Street.

Cllr Baker advised that he had not been able to visit Brecon House on Planning View and had therefore arranged a separate visit. He was met on site by the agent of whom he asked a number of questions. He was able to view the lay-out of the scheme as Members had seen on view. With hindsight he accepted that he should have discussed viewing the application site with the Head of Planning first for which he apologised.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th May 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19^th May were approved as a true record. 

Planning application documents

The case officer gave a detailed introduction to the application for the construction of a single dwelling, in the AONB but meeting the requirements of Paragraph 80 of the NPPF. She highlighted the landscaping, design, and reduction in size of the management building, and drew Members’ attention to the lack of objection from neighbours, highways and the LLFA.  Other consultees considered the proposal to be acceptable, a number of measures were included to improve the ecology of the site, as well as a range of sustainable technology, including solar panels and ground source heat pumps.  Taking all economic, social and environmental aspects into consideration, officers were satisfied that the scheme should be supported on balance, for the reasons set out in the report.

She invited Members to take a close look at a scale model on display in the Council Chamber.

Public Speaking

The agent, speaking in support, apologised for the deferral of this application, which had been requested to ensure the best possible scheme was presented.  Following consideration of questions raised, the decision had been taken to omit the home office element of the estate management building.  He said the applicants bought the site 20 years ago, appreciated its beauty and were keen to continue their passionate stewardship of the land with a ‘forever house’, designed collaboratively by a design team specialist expertise and experience in the design and delivery of Paragraph 80 houses.  The scheme delivered a truly exceptional design, providing the opportunity for significant biodiversity gains, including landscaping, forestry and ecology improvements of the site. The architect is highly respected and renowned, and the scheme proposes an energy strategy which significantly exceeds not only current buildings regulation standards but also RIBA energy targets for 2030.  The Design Review Panel fully supports the proposal, which meets in full the policy requirements set out in Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.  He hoped that Members would permit the proposal, in line with the officer recommendation. 

Member questions

In response to Members’ questions, the officers confirmed that:

-       the applicant had made no revisions to the woodland planting proposal, in response to the ecologist report suggestion that the scheme could include less woodland planting in favour of more grassland, but this could be secured as part of the detailed landscaping plan should Members wish;

-       regarding the impact of the foundation design, the agent has carried out a full site investigation, and confirmed that no special foundations need to be incorporated – the scheme was designed to meet the highest standards regarding carbon;

-       when designing Paragraph 80 houses, the architect always seeks to use a high percentage of cement-replacement concrete to further reduce unwanted carbon;

-       foundation design and detail is usually considered as part of building regulations at construction stage, but a condition regarding foundation detail could be included if the applicant was agreeable;

-       the climate emergency SPD to be considered at Council on Monday would serve as guidance rather than policy if agreed, and could only be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the proposal for first-floor side and single-storey rear extensions to a terraced property in Market Street.  A previous similar scheme was refused for lack of sanitary facilities only; it was not refused on design grounds or for the impact on neighbouring amenity.  The current proposal is exactly the same at ground floor, but includes an additional shower room between Bedrooms 3 and 4 on the first floor, thus overcoming the previous refusal reason.  The recommendation is to grant planning permission. 

Public Speaking

The planning agent, speaking in support, thanked the officer for her clear report, and referred back to the previous scheme which was refused due to concern about lack of sanitary facilities.  He acknowledged that the internal layout of the house was unusual, and had empathy with that opinion, but the solution was straightforward and the bedrooms had been slightly reduced in size to accommodate an upstairs bathroom.  This fully addressed the only refusal reason; in all other aspects the scheme was exactly the same as the previous proposal, which complied with Policy SD14 and was considered acceptable.  He asked Members to support the officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

Speaking on behalf of local residents, a neighbour said that discussion of the previous application had focussed largely on lack of facilities, but also noted that 37 Market Street was described as a residential dwelling whereas all neighbours are aware of the reality that this property is owned and let as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO).  The plans are misleading in showing the ground floor rooms as living rooms where these are in fact rented as bedrooms.  The revised plans have done the bare minimum to address the Committee’s concerns, but to increase the rental opportunity of the dwelling to six bedrooms.  She urged Members to consider a site visit before making a final decision, to see the impact of this on neighbours.  The extensions will result in over-development of the property, which is already extended, resulting in a disproportionally large dwelling.  It will mean loss of light to neighbouring properties, in particular the side extension will reduce the gap and therefore the natural light to the kitchen and bathroom of No. 39; it will also result in a loss of privacy to No. 35.  She asked that Members consider the council’s responsibility under the Human Rights Act which grants people the right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes. 

On behalf of his constituents, Councillor Willingham, suggested there were clear planning grounds to refuse this scheme, but if Members were minded to permit, he asked that several conditions should be added.  He said the proposal represented over-development, making the dwelling excessively large for the site, contrary to NPPF Paragraph 124c, d and e, and potentially resulting in an 8-person dwelling with only two parking permits.   He suggested that the extended property would change the character of the area, was not well designed, and would not be attractive or healthy.  It was not a high-quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning application documents

The case officer introduced the application for a rear dormer in a mid-terraced property in the Central Conservation Area.  This had been reduced in size to address officer concerns, and the key considerations were design, impact on the conservation area, and impact in neighbouring amenity.  The recommendation was to permit, with standard conditions, and the application was at Committee because the applicant works for the council.

There were no public speakers for this item.

Member questions

In response to Members’ questions, the case officer confirmed that:

-          the dormer window looked straight down the applicant’s garden, and would not result in direct overlooking of the neighbour’s garden;

-          dormer windows in a conservation area are not allowed without planning permission – they are not classed as permitted development; the new SPD does not override this.

There was no Member debate.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

Appeals information had been circulated, including recent decision notices, which the Chair said were well worth reading.  

There were none.