Agenda item

Report by the Head of Place (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously).

The Senior Planning Officer (JM) advised the Committee;

·         A decision notice could not be issued until the 21 day notification of Historic England had expired.

·         Of a correction to a photograph issued on page 96. It had incorrectly identified the location of the plot.

·         Photographic views of the conservation area were provided to members and an explanation provided in respect of the impacts on the Conservation Area from development on infill sites, the Conservation Area character appraisals approach to this and the test of weighing the harm against the benefits.

·         An additional drawing was presented to the Committee which had been commissioned by the occupants of Ocean View. This showed an impression of the view from the apartment following the building on the Sunnyside House plot and its effect of the view and light.

·         The property known as ‘Tartooga’ had been built nearby, within the Conservation area, following an appeal.  Further development within this stretch of land was hoped to be avoided to prevent further impact of additional in-fill sites on the wider area.

·         Access to the new dwelling would be via the driveway to the right of the main property, as accessed during the site visit.

Fiona Over (objector), Rob Russell (objector), Mark Dermont (objector), John Woodward (agent) and Jason Smith (applicant) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Malcolm Wilkinson (Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

The Conservation Officer advised the Committee;

·         Although the site was within the boundary of the Conservation Area this did not prevent any development but added a level of scrutiny to such applications.

·         Woolacombe had two separate characteristics: that of the central village area which was more densely populated, and that of the esplanade and surrounding area.

·         The pattern of development; the Edwardian properties on large plots, were very important in the character of the area.

·         Whether the property had a green roof, or not, it was still a building rather than a garden and would be visible.

In accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) any harm caused by an application should be weighed against harm to the public, rather than private, benefit.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer (JM) clarified to the Committee the provisions of paragraph 193 of the NPPF in relation to how ‘less than substantial harm’ should be interpreted.

In the discussion, Cllr Davies discussed the possibility of imposing a condition to require a BRE light assessment. JM clarified that a condition would not be suitable as a negative assessment could mean the application was unacceptable in planning terms and if this was required a deferment should take place if members felt it was necessary.

Following the motion to approve, Senior Planning Officer (JM) clarified to members the need for clarity on whether they were asserting the scheme conserved and enhance the conservation area or whether they considered there to be less than substantial harm which was outweighed by public benefits. They were referred to Policies DM07 and ST15.

RESOLVED that it being 1:00pm that the meeting continue in order for the remaining business to be transacted (unanimous).

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED (6 for, 4 against, 2 abstained) as it was considered that the proposal preserved and enhanced the heritage asset and therefore complied with policies ST15 and DM07 of the NDTLP subject to the imposition of conditions being delegated to the Head of Place in consultation with the Ward Member and Chair of the Committee to include the following:

a)    a standard condition that the development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted;

b)    a condition detailing the materials to be used;

c)    the removal of permitted development rights; and

d)    the construction of parking provision prior to occupation.