Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/21/007

Planning Application - 3no dwellings and access (following demolition of existing dwelling and garage)

(Councillor David Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item in light of the fact that he had taken part in Haverhill Town Council’s consideration of the application when they resolved to oppose the scheme.  However, Councillor Smith stressed that he would keep an open mind and listen to the debate prior to voting on the item.)

Planning Application - 3no dwellings and access (following demolition of existing dwelling and garage)

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel, having been presented to the Panel at the request of the Ward Member Councillor Aaron Luccarini (Haverhill Central).

Haverhill Town Council objected to the scheme which was in conflict with the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to conditions at set out in Paragraph 70 of Report No DEV/WS/21/007.

As part of his presentation the Senior Planning Officer provided videos of the site by way of a virtual ‘site visit’.

Speakers:    Martin Espin (neighbouring objector and also on behalf of fellow neighbouring objectors Mr Kiddy & Mrs Webb) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Pat Hanlon (Haverhill Town Council) spoke against the application

                   Councillor John Burns (neighbouring Ward Member) made a statement against the application on behalf of Haverhill Central Ward Member Councillor Aaron Luccarini

In relation to a comment made by a speaker concerning the inaccuracy of a boundary map shown in the Case Officer’s presentation, the Officer displayed a map to the meeting which showed the correct boundary.

A number of Members voiced concern with the application; principally in relation to the existing dwelling being a non-designated heritage asset. Local Member Councillor Jason Crooks spoke at length on the history of the dwelling and its importance to the town.

Councillor Ian Houlder made reference to the need for additional housing and proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation. However, this failed to achieve a seconder.

Following further debate the Chair invited the Senior Conservation Officer (Buildings) to address the meeting and further elaborate on her comments which were included within the report.

Councillor David Roach proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to (i) overdevelopment and the impact on the character of the area, (ii) access concerns, and (iii) the loss of the non-designated heritage asset. This was duly seconded by Councillor Don Waldron.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that if Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer recommendation, for the reasons stated by Councillor Roach then a Risk Assessment would need to be produced in respect of reason ‘(ii) access’ because Suffolk County Council, as statutory consultee as Highways Authority, had not raised concerns with the scheme in this respect.

However, if the proposer and seconder were content to pursue a refusal motion with just reasons (i) and (iii) as outlined above then a Risk Assessment would not be necessary.

The Chair sought clarification from Councillors Roach and Waldron who both agreed that reason (ii) could be disregarded from the motion.

Accordingly, upon being put to the vote and with 14 voting for the motion and with 2 against it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, for the following reasons:

1.   Policy DM2 Creating Places - Development Principles and Local Distinctiveness and Policy DM22 Residential Design provide that proposals for all development should, recognise and address the key features, characteristics, landscape/townscape character and local distinctiveness. In addition, proposals should maintain or create a sense of place and/or local character, particularly restoring or enhancing localities where strong local characteristics are lacking or have been eroded.

The surrounding area comprises a mix of properties which are predominantly two-storey and three-storey. The dwellings along Old Clements Lane are of traditional design with pitched roofs and are either semi-detached or in short terraces.

The proposed dwellings would be an inappropriate deviation from the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area, and from the rhythm of built form. The proposal would significantly alter the grain of development in the vicinity and fail to respect and reflect the particular character of the locality.

It is the scale, bulk, design and positioning at an elevated level above the existing properties that render these dwellings so at odds with the prevailing character. The dwellings fills the plot in a way that is considered to result in a cramped and contrived overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM2 which requires new development to address the characteristics and local distinctiveness of the area. As a consequence the proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of DM22, Core Strategy Policy CS3, and to the provisions of the NPPF in relation to good design.

2.   Policy DM16 sets out the criteria which will be considered when considering proposals which will lead to the loss of Local Heritage Assets. This includes a requirement to demonstrate a clear understanding of the significance of the building and to ensure that any proposal will not lead to an unacceptable loss. Furthermore, paragraph 197 of the NPPF advises that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In this case the proposal will lead to the total demolition of the building. 27 Old Clements Lane is a double fronted two-storey house with a modified rear ‘outshut’ most likely dating from the early part of the 19th century. Despite the changes that have since taken place to this building, it is still considered to meet the criteria of a non-designated heritage asset, and is considered worthy of retention. Based on the information provided the proposed demolition would prove contrary to policy DM16 in particular insofar as the proposal to demolish the building will entail an unacceptable loss. In cases where the works would cause harm to a local heritage asset clear justification for the works must be provided so that the harm can be weighed against any public benefits. Whilst evidence has been provided of the costs associated with the repair of the building this is not considered compelling. Furthermore, no obvious public benefit arises from the proposal to otherwise outweigh this harm. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to the provisions of DM16, as well as to the provisions of paragraph 197 of the NPPF.

(On conclusion of this item the Chair permitted a short comfort break and asked that an adjournment slide be displayed in the live stream, before reconvening the virtual meeting and taking a roll-call of those present.)