Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 24/01489/FPH be REFUSED planning permission subject to the amended reason set out in the Supplementary document published alongside the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio recording – 31 minutes 13 seconds

 

The Planning Officer advised that updates had been provided in the Supplementary Document to the agenda and there were no further updates.

 

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 24/01489/FPH supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Since this application was refused in June 2024, there had been changes to the proposed materials and colours, plus the addition of solar panels to the property.

·       The site plan had been changed to show 2 parking spaces but there was no change to the size of the allocated parking area.

 

In response to questions, the Conservation and Development Manager advised that the sustainability elements of the property were positive but they did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and the host dwelling that would result from the design compared to a traditionally designed dwelling.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Alistair Willoughby, as Member Advocate, to speak in support of the application. Cllr Willoughby thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The house had originally been in a very bad state of repair.

·       The applicant had shown willingness to adapt the application and had invested money to improve this property.

·       This was a significant improvement to the existing property.

·       This property would be a modern design which would be visually appealing.

·       Timber was a material that had been used in properties for many years.

·       The neighbours had shown no objections to the new design.

·       The porch would have a flat roof which provided a better level of energy efficiency.

·       There were already many different house styles in the road.

 

The following Members asked for points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

In response to points of clarification, Councillor Willoughby advised that:

 

·       There were other timber cladded buildings in the area.

·       Timber made this property sustainable.

·       There was a great variety of porches in properties in the road.

·       Very few semi-detached properties were uniform in appearance.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr Willoughby for his presentation and invited Mr Ashley Greenhall to speak, as representative for the applicant, in support of the application. Mr Greenhall thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He was the designer of the property and a future resident.

·       He wished to create a family home which was energy efficient that reached local government targets.

·       The flat roof and timber cladding met the Local Plan policy D1.

·       The flat roof minimised the building surface area and allowed space for solar panels to be installed.

·       The porch at 13cms higher met passive house standards.

·       A significant investment was being made to make this building sustainable.

 

The following Members asked for points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Sade Billing

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Greenhall advised that:

 

·       Timber had been used as it was more sustainable and would reduce carbon.

·       The flat roof had been used to reduce energy and this was the most sustainable option for the property.

·       Light grey timber had been used to blend in with the property opposite and one further down the street.

·       The design could have been changed if he had heard from the Planning Officer following his visit to the property 9 weeks ago.

·       The porch did not cover the whole front of the property.

·       Japanese timber cladding had a life span of over 100 years.

·       As the property was near a nature reserve and could be vulnerable to mildew, timber had been used as it was more resistant than rendering.

·       A warm roof system had been used for this property and the walls were passive house standard.

·       The vertical gladding on the rear of the property was black.

 

In response to points raised, the Planning Officer advised that after the first refusal, it was still the view of the planning team to refuse permission.

 

In response to points raised, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that as the applicant had not entered the pre application service, further amendments to the scheme were not sought. 

 

Councillor Michael Muir proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Caroline McDonnell.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       Sustainability was important, but a passive house had to be in keeping with the local area.

·       Low carbon emissions could be achieved in the same way in keeping with the street scene.

·       This house would stand out in a row of semi-detached 1930 style houses.

·       The public view at the front of the building was incompatible with the rest of the street.

·       Officers had objected that the porch was 13cm too high.

·       The same levels of sustainability could be achieved with a house more fitting in with the rest of the street.

·       The design was modern and innovative.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that if Members approve this application against the recommendation of the Planning Officer, this would be based upon:  

 

·       The benefits of sustainability of the building outweighing any harm and impact on the street scene and subject to the following conditions.

·       The application must commence within 3 years and;

·       Be implemented in accordance with the submitted drawings.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the motion to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, was lost.

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to refuse permission for the reasons stated in the report of the Planning Officer and this was seconded by Councillor Nigel Mason.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/01489/FPH be REFUSED planning permission subject to the amended reason set out in the Supplementary document published alongside the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21:51