Agenda item

The Planning Officer reported that a number of objections had been submitted since the publication of the report. These objections do not refer to any new points of concern that had already been set out within the officer report.

This application follows an already permitted planning application and listed building consent, granted at Planning Committee last year.

For clarity, the changes from the approved permission are:

¾     New open sided extension to the garage building

¾     Increase in the height and depth of the garage addition

¾     Alterations to the glazed link (set further forward and 0.8m lower) between the garage and The Windmill

¾     New link between The Windmill and extension

¾     Addition of one further rooflight, now 5 in total, set lower within the roof of the extension

¾     Addition of a chimney to the extension

During the process amended plans were submitted which reduced the height of the glazed link, reduced the number and size of the rooflights, reduced the height of the Windmill link with the main extension and lowered the height of the main extension to the approved height.

Councillor Chris Lloyd stated that applications on this site had been discussed on a number of occasions and some applications had been withdrawn.  The Councillor had some questions on the following points:

·         What was approved with the last application;

·         What had been changed as a result of comments;

·         What were the Committee now being asked to approve which would help residents when reading the minutes.

The Planning Officer referred to the extension, the garage and the canopy over the garage.  The garage had now been pushed slightly further forward into the site to be level with the tower.  The plan showed the garage with the canopy at the back, the rooflights and the garage now coming level with the tower where previously it had been set slightly further back.  The glass garage link to the Windmill had been reduced in height from the previously permitted scheme.  When the applicant made repairs to the tower and removed the existing cap on the over-hanging part of the tower a number of small holes were revealed which show the steel supports. The proposal under this application was to retain them and glass over them, their location being just below the cap.  Residents had made note of this.  Another change was to provide a link at the first floor level.  Members were aware from previous discussions there is an unsympathetic 1970s extension.  Under the previous permitted scheme the existing link was to remain and the new extension was to have a pitched roof element.  Now the new first floor element between the Windmill and extension would be set slightly beneath the main ridge to provide a variation between them.  The roof lights at the back of the pitch roof extension, where previously there had been four and slightly higher up they were now lower down with five proposed.  This application included the addition of chimney. The applicant had referred to some old photographs of the Windmill and ancillary buildings which had included a chimney.  From a Conservation perspective the addition of a chimney would not be detrimental to the setting or the Windmill and would restore the prehistoric feature.  When the original plans came in the roof form was much higher but following discussions with the applicant and Conservation advice the application had been amended back to the permitted levels.  The cap had been the subject of quite a few complaints by residents.  The Case Officer had recently visited the site with the applicant as one of the main concerns previously was the window and any overlooking issues. What was proposed now would not change the cap window as it would be the same height and sighting as what was previously approved.  The cap window had not been installed yet but the issues of overlooking had been addressed.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Chris Lloyd thanked the Officer for the information but asked for clarification that the roof height of the ancillary building was back to what had been approved before, sought clarification on the rooflights, the cap was back to what had been previously approved, that there was some work to be undertaken on the Windmill with regard to where the steel supports had been and they would be glassed over.  Greater changes were to the garage, the canopy and the open window and wondered if more details could be provided.

The Planning Officer showed the plans of the garage to the Committee but advised there was no open window.  The alterations referred to the canopy at the back, the garage now being set slightly further forward in line with the tower and slightly lower.  The glazed link between the tower and the garage had been slightly altered from the permitted development.

Councillor Chris Lloyd referred to a picture/drawing which seemed to show a window or space on the garage.  The Planning Officer advised point 3 on the plan showed where the canopy would be, i.e. free of brickwork.  Part of the garage would be enclosed and used as a workshop.

Councillor David Raw asked in terms of the objections on overlooking was that related to the cap window or the rooflights.  The Planning Officer advised that the report had highlighted the outlook from other windows with the cap remaining unchanged. The rooflights being so low they would not propose any overlooking issues.

Councillor Chris Lloyd advised they had been contacted by residents last Friday to ask where the Conservation Officer report was and believed it was uploaded on the website on Monday.  Residents felt that they did not have long enough to appraise the document.  The Planning Officer advised that the important aspects for residents was making comments on the plans.  They can make comments on the Conservation points but ideally the residents should be looking at the plans and making their own independent comments based on what they see.   The Council had met all the required guidance.

Councillor Margaret Hofman referred to the chimney and asked:

·         If it would be a working chimney and if so shouldn’t that be a matter for concern?

·         The conditions are the same as were attached to the previous application but wanted to check they were water tight and that there were proper tree protection and root protection measures in place?

·         Have the recent concerns raised by the residents been addressed?

·         Are the site assets of the building being preserved?

The Planning Officer said with regard to the chimney, it might well be a working chimney but could not say that would be a concern. If there were any issues with the chimney that would be for Environmental Health and not Planning.  What the Committee were considering was whether the application was acceptable on its siting next to the listed building and whether that would cause harm by virtue of that siting. The report indicated it would not.  The Conditions were very similar but not identical to the previous application because there had been changes to the scheme.  The applicant had discharged some of the conditions as part of the previous scheme.  The plans had changed but officers think the conditions are water tight and having worked with the applicant they had discharged a number of the conditions which were required pre commencement of any work.  With regard to resident concerns, officers feel the scheme before the Committee was acceptable.  It had been a long process but hopefully the balance was now in place for what the applicant wished to achieve and the Council wanted to achieve in terms of ensuring the preservation of the listed building which had been in a poor state of repair for some considerable time.  The other element to this application was to improve and enhance the Windmill and its setting which had public benefits for residents in being able to see the Windmill in its glory following the completion of the works.  Residents had put forward various concerns and objections which were detailed in the report but felt the Committee were now in a position to accept the application.  With regard to the historic aspects, Members could see from the photographs there had been improvements made to the tower brickwork.  The applicant had added value to the scheme following advice received over the last couple of years. The listing itself does not cover the internal aspect just the tower.

Councillor Alex Hayward remarked what an amazing property this is and well done to the applicant in trying to preserve it.  The Councillor thanked the planning department for helping guide the applicant and hopefully had addressed the issues raised by the residents.

Councillor Alex Hayward moved, seconded by Councillor Debbie Morris, that both the FUL application and LBC application be both granted as set out in the officer report.

Councillor Chris Lloyd raised further questions with regard to Page 4 of the report where it commented that previously there had been a flat roof but it was now a pitched roof to align with the extension roof.  Could officers provide details and reasons for the change.  The Planning Officer advised that in respect of the link between the tower and the extension it would now have a pitched roof element.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said if the tower was the main feature to be protected does changing the roof have more of an impact on the tower and why was that change proposed from what was previously approved.  The Planning Officer advised that a change was not approved last time.  What was there now was an unsympathetic extension which did not add any value and argued that what was proposed would enhance the tower.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said the extension was not of great merit.  The other concern residents had raised was that the garage was getting closer to the Windmill and if we are looking at the openness of the Windmill we would not want it getting any closer or higher.  The Planning officer confirmed it would not be.

Councillor Chris Lloyd referred to the rooflights which were now 5 instead of 4 and asked if the size of them would be the same or would they be larger or smaller.  The Planning Officer advised they were the same size as approved just one additional rooflight which came as part of this application.  They were proposed to be larger but had been amended to be the same size as previously approved.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 8 For, 0 Against and 2 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION and LISTED BUILDING CONSENT BE GRANTED for the reasons set out in the officer report.