Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 25/01669/FUL &  25/01670/LBC in respect of conversion of buildings to form 3 residential dwellings, extension to garage and associated works. (Reconsideration of application reference 24/02422/FUL following the High Court Consent Order dated 9th July 2025).

2.      Ms Harriet Allen (Planning Officer) introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard (Principal Development Control Engineer) if he had any observations relating to the application.

·       The application followed a previous one that was quashed, but there were no highway issues with either application.

·       The access onto the B3421 and the sight lines were existing. While the sight lines to the south were not up to standard due to the bridge structure, the proposal would result in a substantial reduction in vehicle movements compared to the lawful office use.

·       This significant reduction in traffic would reduce the potential for harm and personal injury accidents, making it difficult to refuse the application on traffic and access grounds.

·       The construction management plan was sufficient for the scale of the proposed conversion works.

·       The site layout, car parking standards, cycle storage, and electric vehicle charging points were all compliant and satisfactory.

·       Highway Officers raised no objection to the application.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andy Moore, Town Council representative, Mr John Cole, objector, Mr Simon Pike and Ms Sharon Bovingdon, supporter, and Mr Fred Quartermain, solicitor for the Applicants, addressed the Committee on this application.

Town Council Representation

5.      Mr Moore addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Town Council

6.      Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr John Cole addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

8.      Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The visibility splay to the south was 62m, which was below the recommended standard, whereas the northern exit was safer.

·       Mr Cole had not consulted directly with the Council’s Conservation Officer.

·       Regarding a question on how the objector would prevent future residents from using his business’s exit during opening hours. Mr Cole stated that if the application were approved, he would likely not police it in order to maintain good neighbourly relations.

·       He confirmed that there was water in the barn near the boiler

Supporter Representation

9.      Mr Pike and Ms Bovingdon addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Supporter

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Agent Representation

11.   Mr Quartermain addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

12.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Regarding the water seen during the site visit, Mr Quartermain stated that this was a localised issue caused by a problem with the boiler.

Member Questions to Officers

13.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Officers explained that they had not given significant weight to the potential use of the northern access, as this was a private arrangement that could be withdrawn at any time. The assessment was based on the southern access being the sole access. The substantial reduction in traffic from the proposed residential use, compared to the lawful office use, made the access acceptable despite the less-than-ideal sight lines. Officers had concerns about the northern access as well, due to a nearby river bridge and a history of two personal injury accidents at that location. Regarding the gardens, officers did not consider the level of traffic to the neighbouring clothing warehouse to be prohibitive for residents needing to cross the access road.

·       Planning permission would not be granted until a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted and approved; it was not a matter that could be dealt with by a post-decision condition.

·       The Principal Drainage Engineer highlighted the omission of the pump from the FRA, which rendered it invalid. He required the FRA to be updated to formally document the pump's purpose and the implications of its removal.

·       Regarding the ownership of the access road and if access rights could be withdrawn, officers confirmed this was a civil matter between landowners and not a planning consideration.

·       Listed buildings had an exemption from standard Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings. The proposal did not include roof insulation, but a condition had been added to ensure that if any insulation were installed in the future, it would be done in a way that would not harm the historic fabric of the building.

Debate

1.    Councillor Vickers opened the debate, noting the unusual situation of reconsidering a previously approved application and stated he did not think there was a huge need for debate. He congratulated the officers on their very clear presentations. He felt that he did not have much to add but expressed regret that he had not been able to attend the site visit, though he was familiar with the site.

2.    Councillor Dick stated that his personal concerns regarding the nature of the Grade II listed building, noise issues, potential highways issues, and flooding had been addressed. He confirmed he had listened very carefully to all that had been said and was relying on the professional reports. He indicated he was happy to propose that both applications be passed.

3.    Councillor Abbs commented that he had nothing much to add, but felt the Committee was in a situation where "the normal hooks for objecting" did not exist. He stated that in reality, there was "nothing to hang a rejection on", and therefore the Committee had no choice but to approve the application. He confirmed he was happy to second Councillor Dick's proposal.

4.    Councillor Hooker stated that based on the policies and submissions, he was not concerned about the external appearance of the proposal. He accepted the Highways Officer's point regarding highways, despite noting the access was "tricky". His main concern was ensuring the surface water drainage matters (SuDS) were resolved before any work could commence, expressing worry that work might begin before a conclusion on the flood risk was reached.

5.    Officers clarified for Councillor Hooker that the recommendation was to delegate the granting of planning permission subject to the satisfactory resolution of the surface water drainage issue, meaning no consent would be issued until the matter was resolved.

6.    Councillor Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report for the reasons listed in the main report and update report for application 25/01669/FUL. This was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

7.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Abbs to grant planning permission for application 25/01669/FUL. At the vote the motion was carried

8.      Councillor Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant listed building consent subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report for the reasons listed in the main report and update report for application 25/01670/LBC. This was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

9.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Abbs to grant listed building consent for application 25/01670/LBC. At the vote the motion was carried

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission for application 25/01669/FUL subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

For application 25/01669/FUL, the Development Manager be delegated to grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory resolution of surface water drainage matters within six months (or a longer period as agreed) and the conditions listed in Section 8 of the agenda report, and any additional conditions required by the Lead Local Flood Authority. If these matters are not addressed within the agreed timescale, the Development Manager be delegated to refuse planning permission for the reason listed on the update sheet.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant listed building consent for application 25/01670/LBC subject to the conditions listed in Section 9 of the agenda report and the additional condition listed in the update report.

Conditions

Reasons