Agenda item

The Planning Officer, Chloe Smart, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the erection of a single new dwelling to the rear of the existing building facing Lansdown Place Lane. The application had been brought to Planning Committee due to concerns from Councillor Driver. The Planning Officer highlighted the fact that this was a revised scheme following the dismissal of the application in 2010. The design had subsequently been significantly amended but there remained an objection from the Heritage and Conservation officer. Planning Officers had however considered the proposal to be acceptable on balance and therefore the officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to a number of conditions.

Public speaking:

Mr Simon Firkins, applicant’s adviser, in support

Mr Firkins explained that the application in 2010 proposed a traditional coach house design.  The principle of a new dwelling was accepted, as was parking, although the Inspector dismissed the appeal on design grounds and for overlooking between the coach house and an apartment within 13 Lansdown Place.  He explained that the issue of overlooking had been addressed by having both bedrooms to the front facing Lansdown Place Lane, with the only window in the rear elevation at first floor serving a bathroom.  As such no overlooking would occur.  A site section also showed that there was no loss of light to apartments in no. 13.

Mr Firkins reported that in terms of design, the building was overtly contemporary, similar to many other coach houses that have been constructed to the rear of listed buildings in the conservation area –examples of some those had been provided in a short letter earlier this week.  Whilst each proposal was to be judged on its merits, they felt these were useful to show similar successful situations.  Two rounds of revisions had been submitted in line with officer’s requests.  These were detailed in the report, with the main changes being: repositioning the dwelling to line up with the rear wing of no. 13; altering the fenestration and detailing to provide a vertical emphasis; the change of material from render to brick.

Mr Firkins explained that following English Heritage’s comments the previous day, the boundary wall had been moved so it is an extra 1.7 metres away from No. 13.  This further minimised any impact on the setting of the listed building.

Mr Firkins explained that as members would have seen on planning view, there were a number of 2 storey brick buildings on both sides of Lansdown Place Lane to the rear of Lansdown Place and Lansdown Crescent.  Some had pitched roofs; others had flat roofs with parapets like this scheme.  In this context the proposal would not be out of place.  It would not have an adverse impact on the listed terrace or on this part of the Conservation Area.  The brick colour shown on the plans may be a bit dark due to printing quality, but it would not look like that in reality and he offered to submit samples.

No off street parking was provided as the site was in a highly sustainable location close to Montpellier, the Town Centre, public transport routes and the railway station.  This had been accepted by an Inspector and officers.

Cycle parking was contained within the private amenity space to the rear and this was covered by a condition.  There was no objection from Highways.  A concealed bin store was provided at the front of the property.

There had been one letter of comment, which posed a few questions and suggestions rather than objecting to the scheme.  The questions were mostly in response to the changes that had been made at the request of officers; changes they felt officers were right to ask for, and which have enhanced the proposal.

Member debate

Councillor Garnham accepted the principle and siting of the development. He recognised that there were concerns from the Heritage and Conservation Officer and in the light of the comments subsequently received from English Heritage he believed the best approach would be for officers to take account of these and work out a design which would fit in with the Planning Committee’s role of protecting the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Councillor Driver referred to other developments which had taken place in the same area. Each application should be taken on its merits. She made reference to existing parking problems down that street and if parking was taken away this would cause problems elsewhere. She also expressed concern about the quality of life of residents who were already living in very small flats and particularly those residing in basements. She warned against overdevelopment of areas.

Councillor Fletcher referred to the sound advice provided by English Heritage and said the committee should “listen to the experts”. She also recognised the concerns of the Heritage and Conservation officer. She believed that there were other reasons, beyond design to refuse the application and made reference to the advice received from the HMO Division which referred to the fact that the bedrooms, as proposed, appeared to be inner rooms. She was therefore very reluctant to support the application.

Kathryn Sayner, the Heritage and Conservation Officer explained that this application concerned the principal terrace building which was a grade II statutory listed building and the site was wholly within the Central Conservation Area. It was an important backlane containing workshops and garages. The design was in her view poor and in order to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework it should be of high quality to ensure quality development.

The Planning Officer reiterated that having taken account of all responses, including those from heritage and conservation, officers felt that the application should be recommended for approval. The application was a brownfield development, in a highly sustainable location and contributed to the housing supply of the town, albeit on a small scale. With the vertical emphasis of the design the property would sit subserviently to the main terrace.

When asked by Councillor Godwin how the design differed to the one presented in the application in April 2010, the Planning Officer explained that the current application was of a contemporary design whereas the previous one was for a coachhouse. She outlined the concerns expressed on the previous occasion relating to neighbouring amenity, and the obscure glazed window which was visible on the rear elevation. In addition the only outlook in that design was through the rooflight which the inspector had deemed insufficient. The application before members had an obscure glazed window on the bathroom.

Councillor Godwin then asked why the points raised on the current application had not been raised in 2010. In response the Planning Officer explained that the principle of the dwelling had been accepted by the Inspector and by English Heritage in that location. The use was residential and should be looked at in the context of the area. Subdivisions of plots continued along the lane. Changes had been made to the application based on English Heritage recommendations to give more space to a listed building.

Councillor Whyborn said that he was minded to abstain from the vote on this application. He thought the building as a stand alone building was fine, however he took issue with the building fitting in with the listed buildings surrounding it. He recognised however that this was a subjective view.

Vote taken on Councillor Garnham’s move to refuse

8 in support

6 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION WON

APPLICATION REFUSED