Apologies of Absence were received from Councillors: Terence Carter, Barry Humphreys MBE, Harry Richardson, and Wendy Turner.

All Members apart from Councillor Peter Gould declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/19/00859 as they knew the applicant as a former District Councillor.

Councillor Mike Norris declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/19/00859 and advised Members that he would leave the room for the item due to his close personal connection with the applicant as a fellow ward Member for many years.

Councillor John Field also declared a non-pecuniary interest in application DC/19/00859 as he had also worked closely with the applicant but he would be taking part in the applications decision a he felt he could approach the item with an open mind.

All Members declared a non-pecuniary interest in applications: DC/18/02014 & DC/18/02015 as the applicant was a Member of the Council.

All Members declared that they had been lobbied on application DC/19/00859.

None declared.

It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from 27 February 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

It was resolved that the Minutes of the meeting from 13 March 2019 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

None received.

In accordance with the Council’s procedure rule for public speaking on planning applications a representation was made as detailed below:

9.1 Before the commencement of the item the Area Planning Manager advised Members that both items before Members had previously been before Committee and reminded Members that they had to give special regard to the weighting of harm to the Listed Buildings.

9.2 Item 1

Application          DC/19/00859                      

Proposal             Application for Listed Building Consent – Installation of panel of pargetted render in existing rendered north wall.   

Site Location       NEEDHAM MARKET- Hallgarth House, 137 High Street, Needham Market, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 8DH

Applicant               Mrs Wendy Marchant

9.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, other the examples of pargetting around Needham Market, that the pargetting board would be made off site and attached to the building, and that the officer recommendation was for refusal.

9.4 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that pargetting was not previously applied to this building throughout its history so would not enhance the asset, that the scalloped edge barge boards would need to have a separate application, and the rendering of the building.

9.5 Members considered the representation from Martin O’ Shea who spoke as the Agent.

9.6 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the scalloped barge boards on the building.

9.7 Members debated the application on the issues including: the originality of the building and the proposed pargetting, the prominence of the building on the High Street and the impact of the proposal, the public benefit of the proposal, the amount of harm to the listed building.

9.8 Councillor Matthew Hicks proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Rachel Eburne seconded the motion.

9.9 By 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

9.10 RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to Acting Chief Planning Officer - Growth & Sustainable Planning to Refuse Listed Building Consent subject to the reasons for refusal given below.

1.     137 High Street, Needham Market is a mid-C16, three-cell plan house constructed of timber frame with roughcast panels. It is notable for a long jetty with exposed knees along its frontage to the street. It is listed at Grade II for its special historic and architectural interest and sits within the Needham Market Conservation Area. This application proposes the installation of an element of detailed pargetting to the northern elevation of the building to show a Tudor rose flanked by Oak leaves. This addition is considered to be incongruous to the building, character and historic understanding given the level of detail proposed and use of pargetting, which is rare within this area and often dates to a much later period that the host dwelling does.

This is therefore held to represent a level of less than substantial harm to the special interest in the building. No public benefit can be identified to offset this identified harm such that paragraph 196 of the NPPF is not satisfied. Given the special regard that is required to be given to the preservation of the listed building by Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1 After the completion of application DC/19/00859 but before the commencement of DC/18/02014 & DC/18/02015, Councillor Mike Norris returned to the meeting room and Councillors Lavinia Hadingham and Matthew Hicks left the meeting.   

10.2 Item 2

Application          DC/18/02014 & DC/18/02015           

Proposal             Householder Planning Application- Erection of an extension to lobby.

                           Application for Listed Building Consent – Erection of and extension to lobby

Site Location       MENDHAM- Walsham Hall, Metfield Road, Mendham, Harleston, Suffolk, IP20 0NR

Applicant               Mr S Haddingham

10.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the contents of the tabled papers before Members, and the officer recommendation of refusal.

10.4 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the view of the proposal from the public highway, and if there was any public benefit to the proposal.

10.5 Members considered the representation from Steven Hadingham who spoke as the Applicant.

10.6 Members debated the application on the issues including: the response from the Heritage team, the harm to the proposal and whether there was any public benefit to the proposal.

10.7 Councillor Sarah Mansel proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor John Field seconded the motion.

10.8 By 4 votes to 6

10.9 The motion fell.

10.10 Councillor Ricard Meyer proposed that the application be approved against the officer recommendation for the reasons as follows:

Whilst the proposal is considered to cause less than substantial harm there are considered to be public benefits with regards to ensuring that a 16^th century farmhouse can continue to operate in the 21^st century, as it offers  facilities to support the farm working, and as future viability would be supported as a result of the proposal, which would outweigh the harm identified. 

Subject to the following conditions:

Standard time limit

Approved plans

Materials to be agreed

Handrail details to be agreed

Handrail implementation

Details of side elevation treatment following removal of pillars to be agreed. 

10.11 Councillor Dave Muller seconded the motion.

10.12 By 5 votes to 5 Votes.

10.13 A short adjournment was taken between 15:50-15:54 for the Chair to receive legal advice.

10.14 The Chair used their casting vote to approve the application.

10.15 RESOLVED

Approve planning permission for the following reason:

Whilst the proposal is considered to cause less than substantial harm there are considered to be public benefits with regards to ensuring that a 16^th century farmhouse can continue to operate in the 21^st century, as it offers  facilities to support the farm working, and as future viability would be supported as a result of the proposal, which would outweigh the harm identified. 

Subject to the following conditions:

Standard time limit

Approved plans

Materials to be agreed

Handrail details to be agreed

Handrail implementation

Details of side elevation treatment following removal of pillars to be agreed.