Minutes:
70.1 Item C
Application DC/19/03577
Proposal Planning Application- Erection of 1 no. dwelling and creation of new vehicular access.
Site Location HADLEIGH – 40 George Street, Hadleigh, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP7 5BE
Applicant Mrs M Quinland
70.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.
70.3 Councillor Derek Davis declared a Local Non-Pecuniary interest in the application regarding the application as his Cabinet Portfolio included leisure. The Planning Lawyer advised Councillor Davis that this did not prevent the Councillor taking part in the debate, discussion, and voting on the application.
70.4 Members considered the representation from Gavin Talbot of Hadleigh Town Council who spoke in support of the application.
70.5 The Town Council Representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: what the public benefits of the proposal were, and the level of heritage harm.
70.6 Members considered the representation from Sheila Larwill who spoke as an Objector.
70.7 Members considered the representation from Ben Elvin who spoke as the Agent.
70.8 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: that the land in question was not in the curtilage of the listed building until the 1960s, that a modern garage had been built nearby, and the status of a bungalow that had been built nearby.
70.9 The Chair invited Dr Jonathan Duck, part of the Council’s Heritage Team, to explain their response to the application. Dr Duck explained that the curtilage of the area of the listed building was significant to the setting of the building and how the law had changed since the listing of the building and how this effected the consideration of weight when deciding applications.
70.10 Members debated the application on the issues including: the definition of the “contrived” design of the proposal within the parcel of land, the level of harm caused by the development , whether there was any public benefit associated with the application, and the impact upon the wider setting of George Street.
70.11 Councillor Derek Davis proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Stephen Plumb seconded the motion.
70.12 RESOLVED
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed development would result in a cramped and contrived form of development which would be out of character with the existing pattern, character and form of development in this area. The proposed dwelling would be backland development and is considered to be contrary to policies CN01 and HS28 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006). The proposal would also conflict with Section 12 of the NPPF which refers to design and provides that development should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings as well as that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.
2. The application proposal affects the character, setting, and significance of Heritage Asset, the Grade II 40 George Street. The proposed development would amount to tandem development eroding the setting and thus significance of the listed building. Furthermore it would neither preserve nor enhance the Hadleigh Conservation Area. The application proposal would, therefore result in a medium level of less than substantial harm to the character, setting and significance of these heritage assets and the public benefit of providing 1 additional dwelling in support of the districts housing supply is not considered to outweigh the harm identified. The application is therefore considered contrary to the provisions of paragraphs 185, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of the NPPF and development plan policies CN06 and CN08, which seek to conserve, and where possible enhance the historic environment and protect the character, setting and significance of heritage assets.
3. The proposed development due to its proximity to the leisure centre would be unacceptably affected by reason of the noise impact. This negative impact on the amenity of any future residents of the dwelling combined with the duration of the impact, will have a negative impact on the amenity of future residents of the proposed dwelling. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are dwellings nearby these are separated by hedges and garden space, the proposal would be located on existing garden land, closer to the source of noise and without the separation distances the existing properties benefit from. As a result, the proposal is contrary to policies CN01 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and the NPPF paragraph 127.
Supporting documents: