Agenda item

Councillor Lillywhite declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left

the Chamber during this debate.

MJC introduced the application for planning permission and listed building consent as above – garage at ground floor, with ancillary living accommodation above.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Prince, due to concerns about the impact on the conservation area, the effect on neighbouring amenity, and highways concerns.  Officer recommendation is to permit/grant.

Public Speaking:

Mr John Cooper, neighbour, in objection

Has lived in the property next door for 11 years, and is speaking in objection to this application to turn a garage workshop into two-storey living accommodation.  There have been nine objections from neighbours, for whom this is the last chance to stop the construction of a modern building at the bottom of a garden in a conservation area, within the curtilage of a listed building, and adjacent to the house originally built by Joseph Pitt – Pittville House.  There was a similar application ten or 11 years ago, which was recommended for refusal and subsequently withdrawn, with the heritage and conservation officer describing it as a pivotal heritage site and highly sensitive.  The heritage and conservation officer now describes the application site as private and discreet.  The objections from neighbours have not been heard.  His family is unclear as to whether the 6m high building will overlook his kitchen, deck, daughter’s bedroom and guest bedroom – the plans do not make this clear and further information is required.  Neighbours feel that officers have not listened to their comments, and neighbours cannot understand the u-turn from the conservation and heritage officer, concerning this prominent dwelling in the Pittville Estate.  From a common sense point of view, it seems likely that this 1950s garage on a back wall is likely to be turned into a residential dwelling via a back door route.

Ms Lisa Shortland, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their hard work and prolonged discussions resulting in the recommendation to grant permission.  Has lived at Devonshire House since 1999 and spent 15 years lovingly restoring the neglected building.  On site visit, Members will have seen that the house and gardens have been meticulously renovated and maintained to a high standard.  It is disappointing that some people have suggested that this proposal will have a negative impact on the conservation area, as they have sought professional advice at every stage, using an historical consultant to research the grounds and building, and working with CBC’s conservation officer and planning officers to design an attractive brick-built coach house and garage which will maintain the integrity of the original vision for the house and grounds, as confirmed by council officers and the Architects’ Panel. Have aimed to restore the setting of Devonshire House in keeping with its historical origins.  Views down Pittville Mews are over car parking, a blank wall, and a modern five-storey development.  Recent landscaping and tree planting, and hopefully the reinstatement of the coach house, will improve the outlook not only for residents of Devonshire House but also for other residents in the area, as well as restoring some of the privacy lost when recent developments were built, and create parking, storage and ancillary accommodation, not impacting on the privacy or light of others, and removing parked cars from within and around the grounds.  Whilst appreciating the neighbours’ concerns, have been mindful of their desire for privacy and light and will happily accept any reasonable conditions to protect this amenity in the future.  Regarding earlier comments about a u-turn in advice, this is not the case, and hopes that Members will permit a thoroughly researched and professionally supported proposal.

Councillor Prince, in objection

Notes that the consultant employed by the applicant has had a complete change of view – when employed by CBC, vigorously opposed a similar development on this site, and questions why her opinion has changed so much.  Also notes that opinions in the report of the Conservation Officer are completely different from those given for the earlier proposal – CBC’s conservation policy has not been weakened since then so how can these views change so dramatically?  Considers this two-storey building will have a dramatic effect:  the view from Pittville House will be lost, with residents looking out on a blank two-storey wall; no consideration has been given to local residents; the effect will be overbearing.  Would have no objection if the application was simply to restore the current buildings, but the proposed two-storey building will impact heavily on the area.  Officers have asked the applicants to remove the window overlooking the town house – questions why, despite this not being done, the recommendation remains to permit, and wonders if the reason why the applicants do not want to remove this window is because of potential future residential use.  If Planning Committee wants to permit this application, asks that two conditions are included:  firstly, that the window overlooking the town house is removed, and secondly, that residential use will not be permitted.  

Member debate:

SW:  for clarification, can officers explain which windows are considered to give rise to overlooking?

PT:  is puzzled.  Looking at the existing buildings, notes that the garages have up-and-over doors to access the road, which is much more friendly.  This design shows double doors opening at both ends, and thus encroaching on the road, and the drawings show where yellow lines will run close to the garages.

AC:  was going to say the same.  The open doors will obstruct the building next door.  Had been going to vote against this application after reading the papers, but after seeing the site on planning view felt it will be OK – but would like to see a change to the garage doors.

MJC, in response:

-          to SW, the windows in question are rooflights on the north elevation – side on to the rear of Pittville House gardens.  There is a condition in the update requiring a sill height of 1.7m, which would prevent outward view downwards.  There is also a suggested condition that the building should only be used for purposes ancillary to Devonshire House;

-          regarding the garage doors, this is difficult.  Would expect for them to open vertically as proposed but this could be conditioned if Members want.

KR, in response:

-          to the comments that conservation advice has changed from the previous application 10 years ago, her predecessor  referred to Devonshire House itself as a highly sensitive pivotal heritage site in its corner plot, and she would agree with this.  She referred to the new building at the back of the house as being private and discreet, not the house itself;

-          Members have made valid comments about the garage doors.  Traditional garage doors open outwards, but as MJC has said, a condition can be included to require up and over doors if this is what Members want.

SW:  for clarity – was not on planning view – do the doors open on to the highway?

KR, in response:

-          yes, they do.

CH:  garage doors are only opened when someone is going in or out, and if they are in somebody’s way, they would be shut.  It is unlikely that they would be left open for long periods of time as the owners will want to protect what is in the garage and therefore keep them shut.  Two outward-opening doors are more traditional than tracked ones, and if they idea is to be sympathetic to the buildings that might have existed here in the past, the current drawings are right.

PT:  it’s all very well going back in time, to when there would have been horses and carts in the coach houses, but looking at the illustration, it appears that the doors open so widely that they will impinge on the neighbour’s gate.  Up-and-over doors will give a better look to the whole area.  If going down the traditional route, there should be no yellow lines, cobbled streets etc.  If we are allowing a modern building in the curtilage of an historic one, it should be as simple as possible.

DS:  cannot see why Members are getting so hung up on the doors.  The residents will want to keep them closed, to protect what is in the garage.

HM:  tracked doors would be an improvement.  The existing single storey garage will be brought forward to line up with other garages, and if doors are open, they will impinge on the gate to Pittville House.  For one reason or another, people often leave their garage doors open at times.

PH:  did a quick arms’ length measurement on planning view, which clearly demonstrated to AC and PT that the garage doors would impact on the gates of Pittville House.  Up-and-over or tracked doors are the sensible option.

AC:  agrees.  In addition, these sort of doors can be operated remotely, allowing the residents to drive up and get away quicker, thus causing less obstruction.

MJC, in response:

-          if Members are minded to approve, and condition regarding garage doors can be worked out and agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair before the permission is issued.

CH:  tracked doors or bi-fold doors would be OK, but objects to up-and-over doors – they are hideous and would spoil the character of the area.

GB:  officers have got the gist of Members’ feelings about the garage doors.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with additional condition re garage doors as discussed

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT