Agenda item

EP introduced the application and explained that the property was a grade II listed dwelling on Mill Street. It was also located within the Prestbury Conservation Area. The applicant was seeking both planning permission and listed building consent to block up an existing access and create a new, wider vehicular access onto the highway. This address had a similar application for a new access refused in 2015, as it was considered to have a harmful impact on the heritage of the dwelling and highway safety. Refusal on the basis of conservation grounds remained. The application was being brought to planning committee at the request of Councillor John Payne.

Public Speaking:

Susan Blair, applicant

The property was purchased in 2004 and she was well aware of the property’s historical and conservation significance. They had invested significantly in the property in terms of its restoration, working closely with the conservation officer. This included replacing the poor extension. She had engaged experts in order to respect the high standards commensurate with the listed status of the property and the conservation area. She informed Members that the existing access to the property was not safe. By changing the location of the access and the size this would be more safe and useable in terms of being able to drive in forward to the new parking area. It would also be to the benefit of the neighbourhood by removing cars off Mill Street. In addition, it would improve the visual character of the existing boundary wall which had changed over time as this would be repointed with lime mortar replacing the current cement. The access would not be glaringly noticeable from the road and cars would access via sliding gates, similar to those at neighbouring properties. She cared very much about the conservation of the property and making these changes would make it fit for dailyuse.

Councillor John Payne

Speaking in support of application

He believed it provided a satisfactory solution to enable off street parking but also recognised the considerable efforts the applicant had gone to when extending the grade II listed Little Priory. As Members would have seen on planning view the extension was not only of exemplary design but had been executed with consummate skill. He explained that the application represented the final phase of the development of the application site, i.e. the provision of an entrance. At the start of this development advice was sought from Gloucestershire Highways as to the viability of the new vehicle entrance, subject to a planning application highways had no objections and so the extension to the main house was designed, which included the demolition of the garage. Councillor Payne explained that the first application was refused following objections from Gloucestershire Highways. The applicant had worked with their architect and highways to produce a plan as lay before Members which now had the full support of GloucestershireHighways.

He then referred to the recommendation to refuse the application based on the concerns expressed by the conservation officer, who was primarily concerned with the loss of historic material, and its impact on the setting of the heritage asset. The Conservation Officer had concluded that the harm would be less than substantial, and in accordance with the NPPF it was necessary to balance the harm against the benefits.

Councillor Payne then outlined the benefits of the proposal:

1.          The removal of the unsightly gates, which following the completion of the extension would beredundant.

2.          As seen on planning view the street side of the wall was in desperate need of repair and restoration, not to mention the substantial inclination and the inappropriate cement pointing. The proposal included the provision to rebuild the entire length of the wall from the house to the new entrance in traditional style in keeping the extension and by the same craftsman, resulting in an enhancement to the street scene, and in keeping with vernacular style of Mill Street and the Prestbury ConservationArea.

3.          The proposal would also allow the applicant to remove their vehicles from the street, where they have been subject to repeated minordamage.

In requesting that this application be brought before the committee he had cited the  existence of precedents. He explained that Prestbury and Mill Street had a number of Grade II buildings and houses of historic interest and as a comparison with the application under consideration he explained that the following had been granted without any objection on conservationgrounds:

·           Home Farm-demolition of stable block and forming an opening in stone wall to access garden.

·           Prior’s Piece (next door to the application site) erection of extension and formation of new vehicular entrance (now has electric wooden gates as proposed in the current application)

·           Grey Gables in The Burgage created a vehicular entrance off Mill Street to access a car park.

He explained that none of these applications included any element of restoration which was central to the current application. Councillor Payne explained that change was a constant feature even in conservation areas. Practically every historic house in Mill Street had undergone change. They had not diminished the character of Mill Street; in fact many had enhanced its character as he believed this proposal would. He urged Members to take a pragmatic approach in their deliberations in order to bring an end to a journey the applicants have been on for a number of years, a journey fully supported by the Conservation Officer, to extend and enhance the Little Priory. The proposal would provide much needed off street parking, and would restore with traditional materials and craftsmanship a boundary wall, which would demonstrably enhance the street scene. Having declared an interest in the item Councillor Payne then withdrew from the Chamber and therefore did not participate in the debate or vote.

Member debate:

DS: Supported the application; the wall would be rebuilt in the same style, preferably with  the same stones displaced from the existing gate. He was reassured that the gates wouldbe

electric and therefore remotely controlled. He endorsed the points raised by Councillor Payne.

DB: Supported the application. Having the wall rebuilt would be an enhancement. There would be public benefit in having off street parking.

SW: It became apparent on planning view that the current quality of the wall was appalling. It was badly pointed and did not appear to be safe. Rebuilding and restoring the wall would bring enormous benefit. He believed the conservation officer should have no qualms in reversing his opinion.

DP: Supported the application. The wall was currently listing so rebuilding it would be a great improvement.

SC: From a purist point of view he would support the conservation officer’s advice, however, the approach proposed was pragmatic and would vastly improve the situation. He would, therefore, support the application.

MC: This was a sensible application. He acknowledged that a build-up of traffic in the area could be problematic so this proposal would help with parking off street. The applicant had been sensible in her proposal to enhance the area. He was therefore in favour of the application.

PB: He acknowledged the important role of the conservation officer in providing sound advice which was in line with policy. He was surprised that the applicant had taken down the existing garage without the security of knowing that an entrance could be secured via the planning process although the conservation officer was not against the new access. He suggested that in future Planning View should look at schemes where permission had been granted for something similar as this may behelpful.

SM, in response:

Made reference to Councillor Payne’s reference to how the conservation assessment was carried out on this significant heritage asset. The conservation officer had acknowledged that the application would cause harm as knocking down the wall does affect the fabric of the structure. The conservation officer had deemed this harm to be less than substantial and he explained that as part of any assessment this was a balancing exercise as to whether the public benefit associated with the application outweighed the harm. The Head of Planning noted that Members were minded to oppose the conservation officer’s recommendation and referred to Councillor Barrell’s reason that off street parking represented a benefit associated with the application and thus of wider benefit to the public. He referred to the experience of the conservation officer’s experience and the fact that any works to a listed building did affect its fabric as it would be changing it. The conservation officer’s assessment was that the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the building and conservation area but he did not believe that the benefits outweighed the harm.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

0 in support

10 in objection

1 abstention

NOT CARRIED

PB: Going against officer recommendation for refusal. Being considered as not harmful.

NJ: Conservation Officer had undertaken a balancing exercise. Members should consider  the benefit which from the debate appeared to be the provision of off streetparking.

DB: The reasons for going against the officer recommendation should be the public benefit of off street parking and also the public benefit of restoring the wall but was not certain what planning grounds could be given in respect of the latter. It was suggested that officers had a look at what other conditions were necessary and that these be considered by the Chair and Vice Chair to see what appropriate conditions could be applied.

SW: Supported the fact that the off street parking and the restoration of the wall was of public benefit

GB: Conditions could be imposed regarding using the original stone for the purposes of the restoration of the wall.

DB: Move to permit on the ground of providing benefit to the area in terms of reduction of off street parking

Vote on DB’s move to permit on the ground of providing benefit to the area in terms of reduction of off street parking

10 in support

0  in objection

1  abstention

PERMIT