Agenda item

The Planning Officer advised there was no update.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the item.

Mr. Turner also spoke against the item.

Mr. Gupta spoke in support of the application.

Members raised three main points: the reasonableness of a landscaping condition, the lack of responses from consulted neighbours, and discrepancies in site coverage opinions. The officer responded by confirming in their view a landscaping condition is not considered reasonable as no changes to the frontage are proposed, the officer acknowledges that no objections from neighbours have been received, and provided clarification on how the21% plot coverage was calculated, which exceeds the 15% guideline but is deemed acceptable for maintaining the conservation area's openness. The officer also clarified that she has included the lightwells within the 21% as they would effectively serve the basement, because they are part of that built form.

In response to a further question; the officer stated that she would not know what the figure would be if the lightwells were not included, as it would require a calculation, but on the basis of a worst case scenario, in respect to the 21% including them, the officer felt it was safer to acknowledge that in her view, albeit that there is an exceedance, she still found the development to be acceptable in that regard.

Members emphasised the importance of preserving pre-1958 dwellings in Moor Park, highlighting their special status and historical significance. They referred to a proposed rear elevation drawing and expresses concerns about its alterations, suggesting it does not adequately preserve the building's original character. They referred to the statement from Mr. Turner regarding potential harm to the conservation area and stress that the building itself warrants protection beyond just the conservation context. Additionally, Members critiqued the justification for the proposed percentage increase in alterations, finding it unsatisfactory, and invited further input from committee members.

Members expressed agreement with the concerns raised by the Parish Councillor and Mr.  Turner regarding a specific conservation appraisal. They argued that the proposed changes represent a significant deviation from the established conservation guidelines. They highlighted the disproportionate elevation of the proposal, which they believe undermines the intended character preservation outlined in the appraisal. Additionally, Members also raised concerns about inconsistencies in the application of conservation appraisals across different areas, suggesting a need for a more uniform approach to ensure fairness in decision-making.

The Chair reminded the committee that they should look at each individual item on its merits rather than across the board. Officer confirmed this.

Members raised further concerns about whether the proposed changes will preserve or enhance the area's character. They acknowledged the applicant's efforts in presenting a visually appealing design but remained sceptical about the impact of specific elements, particularly the lightwells. Members highlighted that even though certain features may not be visible from public spaces, they still hold significance in maintaining the conservation area's integrity. The potential for light pollution from the proposed lightwells raises additional concerns, as it could affect neighbouring properties.

Members of the Committee highlighted the previous permitted developments that led to an unbalanced appearance of the building and argued that the new rear extension could restore balance and enhance the overall character. However, some Members disagreed, emphasising that the design features excessive glass, and misinterpreted the function of the lightwells. Members referenced a conservation officer's report in response, expressing concerns about the scale and design of the proposed extensions, stating that they appear bulky and do not align with traditional aesthetics.

Councillor Debbie Morris proposed refusal of the application, citing insufficient amendments to address prior concerns.

The officer stated that the effect of Members’ concerns are that by reason of the scale, sighting and design of the proposed rear extensions fail to preserve or enhance the character of the existing pre 1958 dwelling, which makes a positive contribution to the conservation area, therefore resulting in less substantial harm to the designated heritage asset, in this case being the conservation area, and that there are no public benefits to outweigh the identified harm.

Members further added that there were concerns regarding the potential impact on the conservation area due to proposed changes in plot coverage. Officers suggested including specific wording that highlights the loss of openness across the site, which could detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area. The specific wording will be circulated to Members of the Committee.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved, seconded by Councillor Abbas Merali, that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 6 For, 0 Against, 3 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The full agreed wording being as follows:

The proposed rear extensions, by virtue of their design, siting and scale, would detract from the character of the existing pre-1958 dwelling which positively contributes to the Moor Park Conservation Area. The proposed extensions would therefore fail to preserve the character and appearance of the house and would result in a loss of openness across the site. The resultant impact would diminish the positive contribution currently offered by the dwelling and therefore would as a direct result harm the character and appearance of the Moor Park Conservation Area. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm under paragraph 208 of the NPPF, however, no public benefits have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policies DM1, DM3 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013), the Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2006) and NPPF (2023).