Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER 

Two  storey  side  extension  and  single  storey  rear  extension.  Insertion  of rooflights  to  existing  outbuilding  and  erection  of  detached single  garagefollowing demolition of existing garage. 

 

RESOLVED: That contrary to the officer recommendation, application 23/01749/FPH be GRANTED planning permission and listed building consent. As the applicant proposed changes to the external materials in an informal submission, the resolution was subject to the following condition to be attached to both the permission and listed building consent:

 

Notwithstanding the materials shown on the submitted plans and application form, details and/or samples of all external materials to be used for the works, hereby granted consent, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced.

 

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building to which this consent relates and to comply with Policies SP13 and HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.

 

 

Audio recording: 4 Hours 6 minutes and 20 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       Documents were on the website prior to the meeting including a letter from the applicant and a response from the planning officer.

·       The development would lead to less than substantial harm to heritage assets and there were no public benefits that outweighed the harm identified.

·       The Council acknowledged the letter from the applicant, and the proposed changes, they are not for consideration, and it remained the original scheme for determination.

·       The changes in the letter from the applicant were that the development was still 2 storey, but slightly reduced in height and set further back from the front elevation.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 23/01749/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

There were no questions for the planning officer.

 

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Nicola Price to speak in support of the application. Councillor Price thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Councillor Price was showing support for this application as a Parish Councillor and a resident of the village.

·       The village was very protective of its area and residents are usually vocal about schemes that harm the historic aspects of the village. However, this application agrees with the historic aspect and in keeping with the charm of the village.

·       Lilley is a very small village and needs young families. It was required to house young families in the area in properties that could sustain this.

·       Lilley Conservation Charter set out in 2020 notes key properties in the area, a large amount were detached or semi-detached and enhances the village. It was believed this scheme adhered to the criteria.

·       Removal of the garage would increase the area between houses.

·       The materials to be used would enhance and retain 45 West Street for its future.

·       The applicants had sympathetically restored the property and maintained its original character.

·       The need for a third bedroom with a growing family was very apparent. The current second bedroom has a very small floor space and was restricted by height.

·       The applicants are keen members of the community and would be a shame to see them have to move on from the area.

·       The direct neighbours and members of the community have approached the Parish Council, all in support of the application, and had urged the Parish Council to back this application.

·       The proposed extension would not be visible to passers-by, demonstrating the minimal impact on the conservation area.

·       Identical cottages in the area had also had planning permission for similar adaptations.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that no amended plans were submitted to the planning department, who only received a letter responding to comments. The Planning officer would not accept the principal of a 2-storey side extension to the property.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Price for her presentation and invited Councillor David Barnard to speak in support of the application. Councillor Barnard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       A letter from 11 November in response to letter of 9 November was offering to move the property back, lower the roof and take off the render.

·       Neighbours were in full support of the removal of the 1960s concrete garage and its re-build.

·       It was noted the statutory period expires on 26 September 2024. The application was submitted in August 2023.

·       No responses had been received from planning officers since January 2024 until a couple of weeks ago.

·       It was noted that Lilley parish Council did not comment on this application, when they did submit a comment.

·       There are other examples of planning permission given to properties in the area.

·       This application has no effect on the street scene.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Barnard for his presentation and invited Ms Emma Talbot to speak in support of the application. Ms Talbot thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The applicant logged changes to the planning application, but was not told the changes would not be looked at.

·       The applicant asked for photos of Horseshoe Cottage to be uploaded to the application. This was not carried out.

 

·       The extension was until 31 January 2024. The applicant had a response from the Conservation Officer, yet this was based on the old application.

·       The applicants had sympathetically restored Rose Cottage to what it is today.

·       Their growing children were sleeping in toddler beds and desperately needed an extra bedroom.

·       To continue living in the property, the family would need a conventional layout with a further bedroom upstairs.

·       Despite alterations to the first set of plans, these were refused without prior notification.

·       The recent alterations to the application were only acknowledged on 4 June, 9 days before this meeting.

·       There was no encroachment of privacy onto the neighbours properties. The scheme is of an appropriate scale to the plot size and in keeping with its surroundings. There is adequate parking for 5 cars.

·       Removal of the unsightly 1960s flat roof garage is greatly supported by the Parish Council and community.

·       The angle of the property allows the extension to be almost obscured from public view.

·       It was impossible to reduce the height anymore by not retaining the first floor.

·       The rear roof planes were at the back of the house, unseen from public view.

·       It was noted that 3 other properties in the area have downstairs toilets in the same design.

 

In response to points of clarification from Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the application was the original filed as comments were not received by the planning officer. The fundamental issues are the height of the extension.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Cllr Mick Debenham, Ms Talbot stated that:

 

·       The planning officer advised in 2020 to maintain a single storey side extension, with the pitch height being almost identical to the proposal forwarded.

·       The family also required a downstairs toilet for disability needs. The conservation officer suggested the toilet to the left of the property, obscuring the back door, but this would not be allowed on the right of the property.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning officer advised that:

 

·       The points made on the scale of the development are in relation to the greenbelt, rather than the listed building.

·       While this complied with some parts of the NPPF, it did not on others.

·       Each case is based on its own merits. The visibility of the development from the highway has no bearing in terms of the effect upon the character of this Grade 2 listed building.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to approve planning permission and this was seconded by Councillor Michael Muir. 

 

The following members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       It was noted the hard work that officers had put into this application with dealing with the correct procedures.

·       There had been no objections to the development from people in the vicinity.

·       Members saw no reasons not to allow this application.

·       It was a huge improvement for the 1960s garage to be taken down.

·       For the family to stay in the community and for villages to be supported and vibrant with young families.

·       The floor plan was not an increase and was no harm to the nature of the village.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant planning permission for the development and Councillor Michael Muir seconded, and following a vote it was:

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was: 

 

RESOLVED: That contrary to the officer recommendation, application 23/01749/FPH be GRANTED planning permission and listed building consent.

 

“Notwithstanding the materials shown on the submitted plans and application form, details and/or samples of all external materials to be used for the works, hereby granted consent, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works are commenced.

 

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building to which this consent relates and to comply with Policies SP13 and HE1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 to 2031.”