Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer, Emma Pickernell, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the demolition of an existing garage at the rear of 16 Cambray Place and the construction of a new four storey dwelling at 28 Rodney Road. She highlighted that the side elevation of the building comprised metal standing seam cladding which curved over to form the roof of the majority of the building. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application due to the impact on the listed building and the size and the design of the building. It was being brought to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury.

Public Speaking :

Mr Patel, applicant.

Mr Patel explained that the site had many years of family history.  The plot occupied by the garage had always been a separate plot as indicated on the 1820 historic map.  He had provided the local authority with a copy of legal documents which confirmed that the plot had been sold and registered as a separate piece of land a number of times.  Rodney Road was mentioned in the Montpellier Character Area Appraisal which stated that the intense parking and loss of boundary treatments had had a negative impact on the street, downgrading the west side and stating that the east side was less attractive.

The Conservation Officer was concerned that the proposal would have a negative impact on the setting of 16 Cambray Place. However there would be a greater distance between the rear elevation of the proposed building and 16 Cambray Place than that of neighbouring properties.  The proximity between the properties north of the site could be seen on the historic map.  From the site visit committee members would be aware that the adjacent building at 26 Rodney Road is closer in proximity to 16 Cambray Place than the proposed building.  Unlike the neighbouring properties neither of the rear wings of 16 Cambray Place  would have any windows that face the proposed building.

Before submitting the application he had discussed the proposal with neighbours and local residents and it had been well received with extremely positive feedback.  Their opinion was that the proposal would be an improvement to the quality and appearance of the road.  There had be no letters of objection. His view that the development would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area was supported by the Architects Panel and the Civic Society.

The east side of Rodney Road already had a variety of different buildings with a modern four-storey building adjacent to the application site and the most recent addition under construction is also a modern four-storey building.  Both buildings were either adjacent or behind listed buildings.

In his view the site currently had no visual or architectural merit and its redevelopment presents an opportunity to create a new home in a sustainable location making better use of an underutilised site to provide a much-needed additional home to the town.  The building was well designed and imaginative and would integrate well with the street scene and the proposed high-quality materials would add interest to this mixed use area. He hoped that the committee members would support this proposal and enable him to build a home that was adaptable for himself and his family to live in for many years.

Member debate

Councillor Stennett explained that he had reservations about this application having seen the site on Planning View due to the space between the existing property and this proposal. He did however accept that the site should be developed. He would prefer to see something mirrored as opposed to the wrapped around effect of this design and to that end he supported the views of the Heritage and Conservation officer and the Planning Officer.

Councillor Wheeler concurred with the view of officers. He took issue with the fact that the roof would consist of plastic clad metal and this would not be in keeping with the neighbouring building. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that there was no suggestion in the application that the metal would be plastic coated.

Councillor Fisher supported the views of the Architect’s Panel and the Civic Society and believed this was an ingenious use of the site.

Councillor McCloskey liked the design, which in her view was exciting and innovative. She believed that the harm caused to the listed building was a subjective view and this did not outweigh the benefits that this design would provide. This was in accordance with paragraph 65 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Garnham supported the application and believed that residents would be advantaged in terms of having a better outdoor space than currently. The design was exciting in his view.

Councillor Whyborn noted the divergence in the experts’ views. He thought the design was appropriate, however did not believe it fitted in with the surroundings and therefore supported the views of the Heritage and Conservation Officer.

Councillor Thornton highlighted that both the Civic Society and the Architects Panel agreed that this application would be an interesting addition to the streetscape and said that the building was at the back of the listed building and therefore not visible from the front. The issue of the curtilage of the garage was a technicality.

Councillor McKinlay noted that there were a number of modern buildings in that area and therefore thought that this was an innovative design which would not be out of place.

Councillor Driver agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse as she took issue with both the colour and the material proposed.

Councillor Barnes also agreed with officers and believed this would not complement the area and would distract from neighbouring buildings but did acknowledge that the design may be appropriate in a different location. In addition he believed that access alongside the property for residents of the listed building to the shared garden would be miniscule. He therefore was of the view that whilst it was a viable area for development, the property proposed should be in better proportion to the rest of the buildings and not obscure them.

The Heritage and Conservation Officer explained that in addition to her comments outlined in the report she wished to highlight the following:  The land concerned was a wedge shape and not parallel to the setting of the listed building. There would be a decreased area for the back gardens of number 16 Cambray Place which had a long rear wing. The principle of a contemporary design in historic settings was not an issue. However in terms of the character of Rodney Road rear plots tended to be front elevations and rear elevations and blank sides. The proposed building would have a very prominent side elevation with oblique views. She noted that the building next door was very large and unusual but it had front and rear elevation and bank sides. She also highlighted the relationship between the barrow vault roof and the roof line of the new building. The space of the site would be cramped and in her view it was not the right building for the site.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that if members were minded to approve the application it should seek delegated approval to agree on appropriate conditions. He also clarified that the proposal did not include ‘plastic clad metal’ but instead standing seam metal.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to refuse

8 in support

6 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION WON

APPLICATION REFUSED