Agenda item

(Councillor Claire Rowles had been lobbied on this application.)

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5(5)) concerning Planning Application18/03398/HOUSE in respect of two storey and single storey extensions at Winterley House, Kintbury.

2.    Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was unsatisfactory and a conditional approval was not justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee refuse planning permission.

3.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Markus McNally, applicant, and Mr Frank Dowling, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.    Mr McNally and Mr Dowling in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The property was not a listed building or in a Conservation Area and there was no mention of any historic interest in any property searches. It was being referred to as a non-designated asset by the Council, a phrase which had no legal meaning.

·         The Planning Inspector who determined the appeal was not a specialist in historic buildings.

·         The property was of Georgian origin and had been extended and altered throughout its life to meet the wishes of successive owners and now had a muddled internal layout. Improvements were required and the best features would be preserved.

·         The application had been revised from the version seen by the Planning Inspector. The extension had been set back and down so it was distinguished and subservient to the main part of the property. Details and materials would match the main part of the house and enhance the property.

·         The applicant was committed to the local area and wanted to make the property larger for his family.

5.    Councillor Adrian Abbs enquired upon the heritage status of the property and noted that previously there was a grade three listing for buildings, which was removed in the 1980s. Mr Dowling advised that some properties had been upgraded to Grade two when grade three status was removed and others were removed entirely from the list unless in a Conservation Area. Some Councils held local lists.

6.    Councillor James Cole and Claire Rowles in addressing the Committee as Ward Members raised the following points:

·         The property was not Georgian. One quarter of the ground floor was the original Georgian, one quarter was mid-Victorian and the remaining half was modern.

·         The ‘nice bit’ of the property was the modern part. The house was no a heritage asset.

·         Great weight was attached in the appeal decision to the property’s status as a non-designated heritage asset. One day it might justify such a label.

·         The proposed extension was subservient to the main property.

·         Four Members present at the Committee had not undertaken a site visit and they should see the site in order to make a decision. The Committee should permit the application or defer in order to complete a site visit.

7.    Councillor Tony Vickers asked why Councillor James Cole no longer thought the property was a heritage building. He responded that the property had changed over the years and the nice part was modern.

8.    Councillor Clive Hooker confirmed that Members could visit the property if they wished. Councillor Vickers reported he would like to see the property.

9.    Turning to questions for officers, Councillor Hilary Cole stated that she was mystified that the same criteria had not been applied to the Donnington Square application. Derek Carnegie stated that there was a clear different to that case as there was a three page appeal decision from the Planning Inspector and it was not the place of the Local Planning Authority to overturn it.

10.Councillor Hilary Cole advised that the proposed extension had been set back and down and questioned how different the application would need to be. Derek Carnegie responded that it had not been set down sufficiently.

11.Councillor Rowles expressed the view that significant weight had been attached to the label as a non-designated heritage asset and asked how that term was defined. Derek Carnegie stated that the Planning Inspector had reported the impact of the extension on the character of the building as the main issue. Councillor James Cole challenged that the Inspector made the decision based on the information provided by the Council; Derek Carnegie confirmed that they would have made their own investigations.

12.Councillor Vickers stated that the term ‘non-designated heritage asset’ had no legal meaning and asked whether assumptions could be made about the Inspector’s information. Derek Carnegie advised that he was confident that all Planning Inspectors were qualified and would interrogate any information they were presented with.

13.Councillor Hilary Cole expressed the view that the debate had been bogged down in the heritage issues when the comments of the Archaeologist and Conservation Officer also related to the bulk.

14.Councillor Jeff Beck had proposed acceptance of the application at the previous meeting but had agreed to withdraw the proposal to enable the item to be deferred. Half of this new Committee membership had not been present at that meeting so he agreed that Members should have an opportunity to visit the site. Councillor Beck proposed that the item should be deferred. This was seconded by Councillor Barnett.

15.The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal which at the vote was carried.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred.