Agenda item

EP described the application, reminding Members that they refused an application for two dwellings at this site two months ago, primarily because they did not like the flat-roofed design.  The applicant has now altered this to a pitched roof design, which is acceptable to officers.  The application is at Committee due to an objection from the parish council.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gavin Hill, neighbour, in objection

Lives next door to the application site.  This is the third application for two dwellings of contemporary architecture on this site, which lies in the Cudnall Street Conservation Area.  The first was withdrawn due to overwhelming objection to its contemporary design; the second was refused by Committee in March.  The refusal reason stated that, while the Cudnall Street Conservation Area is generally characterised by traditional dwellings with pitched roofs, and the existing building contributes towards this character and makes a positive contribution, the proposed houses, by reason of design and roof form, would be incongruous and failed to preserve on enhance the character of the conservation area, contrary to Local Plan polices BE3 and CP7.  This gives a very clear steer on what is acceptable and what not, but the applicant chose to ignore the refusal reason, added mono-pitched roofs to the design and made a new application four working days after the previous one was refused – a sign of naivety or arrogance.  As one Member pointed out at the last committee meeting, this type of design would be more suited to the Costa del Sol.  Tellingly, the Heritage and Conservation Officer supported the previous application but recommends refusal of this one.  Has no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two new ones, as the site can accommodate these, but he and his neighbours strongly object to the contemporary architecture proposed.  Generally likes contemporary architecture provided it is coherent, sits well in its setting and adds to it, but this application does none of these things.  The previous refusal reason is equally relevant here.  Urges Members to refuse the application on grounds of inappropriate design within the local context.

Member debate:

KS:  to her, the houses look a bit like angry frowning faces, though realises that this is in the eye of of the beholder.  Said at the previous meeting the flat-roofed dwellings were not appropriate here and were more suited to a Mediterranean setting than to our wet climate, but was not anticipating the pitched roofs as presented now, which are an insult to the intelligence.  This is very disappointing; is not happy to support this application.

HM:  was not at the March meeting, but looked at the minutes and at the refusal reason and notes that the flat-roofed design was considered inappropriate.  Also noted the Conservation officer’s concern about the view from Ryeworth Road - the dwellings would be visible 2m above the hedge.  This proposal is worse – the dwellings will be visible 3.3m above the hedge.  As this was not discussed at the March meeting and refusal on these grounds cannot therefore be proposed, will abstain from the vote.

BF:  the Conservation Officer’s recommendation is to refuse, and Members should follow this advice.  Regardless of the hedge, most of the previous refusal reasons still apply.  Is not against development of this site, but not what is proposed.

SW:  was very concerned about the flat roof, and would like to have seen an ordinary pitched roof rather than what is being offered now.  Although the corner is quite concealed, the proposed dwellings will not make a great view; would like to see a more traditional house, but has little to put forward as a strong refusal reason.

PH:  at the last meeting, felt she could support the application – it had merit, and being built on ground much lower than Cudnall Street, very little of it was on show.  HM has made an important point, and the proposed roof has exceeded Members’ demand for a proper roof – it doesn’t do much for the design of the dwelling or for the site.  Will find it difficult to refuse or support this application, so will probably abstain. 

KS:  moves to refuse, based on comments from the Conservation Officer.  Was not happy with the flat roof, but was not anticipating this ‘angry person’ on the corner.  The houses need to be shorter if pitched roofs are added.  This is not acceptable.

EP, in response:

-          Members are clearly concerned with the design and taking the previous scheme into account.  They should not feel tied by this, and should consider the current scheme afresh, looking at it in its own right;

-          if Members are minded to refuse, it is always helpful if they can identify the specific harm they consider it will do.

PT:  this is a Catch 22 situation.  If the application is refused on design, we should say that this is a secluded, attractive corner of the conservation area and these two houses don’t fit – proposals can be refused if they don’t complement the existing dwellings.  Is unhappy that the developer has simply slapped two roofs on the previous design, without giving real consideration to what Members wanted – they are trying to do what is best for the town, yet these dwellings will stick out like a sore thumb.  It’s true that only a few people will see it, but this doesn’t matter – it should still complement the area.

BF:  the officer has asked for reasons to refuse – all the Conservation Officer’s comments are valid here, and also comments made by KS.

KR, in response:

-          following on from what PT has said, if this application is refused and goes to appeal, how the refusal reason is worded will be critical.  The NPPF states that local planning policy and decisions shouldn’t impose or stifle certain styles, and should promote local distinctiveness.  Keeping this in mind, a refusal based on KR’s reasons as set out in the report should be OK and in line with the NPPF.

HM:  in response to the question of what the harm of this proposal would be, the Conservation Officer’s comments say it all.

EP, in response:

-          if Members want to refuse on the grounds set out in the report by the Conservation Officer, they must be sure to have read the comments preceding her conclusions to make sure they agree with the comments leading to her recommendation.

Vote on KS’s move to refuse on grounds set out by KR in officer report (NPPF, PPS5, CP7 and GE2)

12 in support

1 abstention

REFUSE