Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/24/007

Planning application - first floor flat above existing restaurant as amended by plans received 08 September 2023

Planning application - first floor flat above existing restaurant as amended by plans received 08 September 2023

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel. It was referred to the Delegation Panel at the request of Councillor Julia Wakelam, one of the ward members for Abbeygate Ward.

Bury St Edmunds Town Council had recommended refusal in line with the views of the West Suffolk Conservation Officer, and the Officer recommendation was one of refusal.

A Member site visit was undertaken prior to the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following additional comments following the distribution of the agenda and papers for this meeting:

·         To clarify that the 2019 planning permission, approved in 2020 for a one bedroom flat at first floor level had now lapsed. That element now formed part of the current proposal albeit now with the addition of a flat roof side element.

·         Further comments had been received from the Georgian Society whereby there remained no objections in principle to the extending of the building; however, the proposal was still a relatively large structure in comparison to the host building and other adjacent heritage assets through its scale and massing. The society felt it would cause harm to the historic setting and surrounding Conservation Area and unless a less harmful scheme could be formulated, the society would recommend the application be refused.

Speaker:      Councillor Julia Wakelam (Ward Member: Abbeygate) spoke in support of the application.

Some members felt that having visited the site, although flat roofs were not in their opinion particularly aesthetically pleasing, it was felt that the proposed extension would not be publicly visible and therefore would not cause harm to the fabric of the existing listed building or its historical setting within the Conservation Area.

Councillor Lora-Jane Miller-Jones subsequently proposed approval of the application, contrary to the officer recommendation of refusal, which was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

The debate continued and although a matter for Building Control, concern was expressed regarding provision of an adequate fire escape route which did not appear to have been satisfactorily provided in the design. The lack of bin storage provision was also of concern to some members; however, it was noted that if the application were to be approved, a condition could be placed on the applicant to provide suitable bin storage facilities.

Some members felt that if the applicant were to submit a proposal that was more sympathetic and in keeping with the Conservation Area, the principle of the development may be acceptable. Generally, it was felt by some and in agreement with officers and comments made by the Conservation Officer and Victorian Society that through the present proposal’s scale and massing, and for reasons of unsympathetic approach, in particular its flat roofed design being in conflict with the steeply pitched roofs of the host building to include historic extensions, it would dominate the historic structures causing harm to their setting and to the surrounding Conservation Area.

Before moving the vote on the motion for approval was taken, the Service Manager (Planning and Development) explained that the Decision Making Protocol would need to be invoked, requiring a Risk Assessment to be produced for consideration by the Committee, therefore making the decision a ‘minded to’ decision. This was because of the impact the development would potentially have on the listed building, its setting or features of special architectural or historic interest which it possessed, together with the potential impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

It was also reiterated that the development would not need to be publicly visible to cause intrinsic harm to the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  

The Council’s duties under the relevant Planning Act regarding Listed Buildings and Conservation Area were also emphasised.

The motion for approval on a ‘minded to approve’ basis was put to the vote and with the vote being 3 for the motion, 11 against and 1 abstention, the motion was therefore lost.

Councillor Roger Dicker proposed refusal, as per the officer recommendation, and this was duly seconded by Councillor Phil Wittam.

Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion, 3 against and 1 abstention, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

As set out in the NPPF, heritage assets should be conserved in a way that is appropriate to their significance. Heritage assets include an extensive range of features that include archaeological remains, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

DM17 states that proposals within Conservation Areas should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, or its setting, views into, through and out of the area and be of an appropriate scale, form, massing and design. DM15 states that development affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted where it is not detrimental to the buildings character, architectural or historic features that contribute to its special interest.

No.9 Risbygate Street is an early nineteenth century structure with later nineteenth century alterations which forms part of a significant group of historic buildings including the adjoining grade II listed No.10, of which it once appears to have formed part. At the rear of the building is an earlier lower wing of eighteenth-century appearance which is also visible from the street. Through its scale and massing, and for reasons of unsympathetic approach, in particular its flat roofed design being in conflict with the steeply pitched roofs of the host building to include historic extensions, the proposed extension will dominate the historic structures causing harm to their setting and to the surrounding Conservation Area.

The proposed therefore development fails to respect the host building and its historic context, proving contrary to policies DM2, DM15, DM17 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document 2015 and policy CS3 of the St Edmundsbury Core Strategy 2010. The development fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, and would adversely impact on the listed building itself, causing less than substantial harm. There is insufficient public benefit to outweigh this harm which results in a material conflict with paragraph 208 of the 2023 National Planning Policy Framework.