Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Relating to Application 18/03349/S73 granted on 15/03/2019 - Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) to facilitate relocation of parking at plots 5 and 6, change of external material at plot 5 and variations to the dwelling type, scale and appearance of plots 3 and 8.

RESOLVED: That had the Committee determined planning application 18/01622/FP it would have resolved to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason and therefore wishes to contest the appeal ref. APP/X1925/W/21/3271157:

The principle of residential development on this site would harm the character and appearance of the Barley Conservation Area as it would result in the loss of the existing open land which represents a transitional area from the village fringe to the rural countryside and which commands an important role in providing the rural setting of the Barley Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore harm the special character of the Barley Conservation Area and to a lesser extent, the setting of 'White Posts' a grade II listed building. The in-principle harm would be further exacerbated by the excessive scale, bulk and massing of both Plot 3 and Plot 8 hereby proposed, which would be at odds with the semi-rural, edge-of- village context and which would fail to provide a cohesive appearance and form of development. Although the degree of harm is considered to be less than substantial, the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that has been identified and which has been afforded significant weight. As a consequence the proposed development is contrary to Policies 6 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations, Policies SP5, SP9, SP13, D1, CGB1 and HE1 of the Emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 as Modified and Sections 12 and 16 and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Audio Recording – 1 Hour 42 Minutes 30 Seconds

Relating to Application 18/03349/S73 granted on 15/03/2019 - Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) to facilitate relocation of parking at plots 5 and 6, change of external material at plot 5 and variations to the dwelling type, scale and appearance of plots 3 and 8.

The Principal Planning Officer – Strategic Site resented the report in respect of application 20/03072/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plan.

The Principal Planning Officer – Strategic Site provided an update as follows:

·                Two non-material amendments had been received. The first amendment was regarding the change of the bulk and scale of plot 3. The second amendment was in relation to plot 8, the proposals of which were being heard at the meeting.

The following Member asked questions of the Officer:

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response, the Officer provided an overview of the site history.

Mr Samuel Bampton and Mr Robert Prosser, thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of the application, including:

Mr Bampton addressed the Committee first:

·                There was no additional heritage harm from the proposals;

·                Self-build homes added greater benefit than general market housing;

·                An appeal had been submitted for non-determination;

·                No written comments had been received from the Council’s Conservation Officer;

·                There would a new car park for the doctor’s surgery;

·                The scheme was being delivered in two phases;

·                A sub-station was being relocated;

·                Plots 3-8 had been re-designed to meet requirements of purchasers;

·                The height of plot 3 was lower;

·                Plot 8 had been re-designed to make it more suitable for the conservation area;

·                There were no objections from the public or parish council; and

·                The planning balance weighed in favour of the proposal.

Mr Prosser addressed the Committee:

·                A self-build house allowed them to design a home that suited their requirements such as homeworking and caring for parents.

The following Members asked questions of the speakers:

·                Councillor Mike Rice; and

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to questions raised, Mr Bampton responded as follows:

·                The original proposal came in as normal residential/conventional scheme;

·                Self-build was defined as housing designed for the intended end user;

·                Delivery of their self-build had evolved; and

·                The house on plot 3 was an entirely new and unique design that would suit the user’s requirements.

The Officer responded to points raised, including:

·                The original proposal was for 6 market houses and 2 affordable units.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

Councillor David Levett proposed to refuse planning permission. The proposal to refuse was seconded by Councillor Tony Hunter.

It was voted upon and:

RESOLVED: That had the Committee determined planning application 18/01622/FP it would have resolved to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason and therefore wishes to contest the appeal ref. APP/X1925/W/21/3271157:

The principle of residential development on this site would harm the character and appearance of the Barley Conservation Area as it would result in the loss of the existing open land which represents a transitional area from the village fringe to the rural countryside and which commands an important role in providing the rural setting of the Barley Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore harm the special character of the Barley Conservation Area and to a lesser extent, the setting of 'White Posts' a grade II listed building. The in-principle harm would be further exacerbated by the excessive scale, bulk and massing of both Plot 3 and Plot 8 hereby proposed, which would be at odds with the semi-rural, edge-of- village context and which would fail to provide a cohesive appearance and form of development. Although the degree of harm is considered to be less than substantial, the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that has been identified and which has been afforded significant weight. As a consequence the proposed development is contrary to Policies 6 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations, Policies SP5, SP9, SP13, D1, CGB1 and HE1 of the Emerging North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 as Modified and Sections 12 and 16 and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.