Agenda item

Application Proposal: The carrying out of various internal and external alterations (part retrospective)

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda and outlined the key considerations.  He explained that the application was a resubmission of an application previously submitted to the Area West Committee in June 2017 to regularise unauthorised retrospective works.

With the aid of slides and photographs, the Planning Officer explained in further detail about the external and internal works undertaken to the building and how they were harmful to the significance of the listed building.  He advised that the contentious elements of the application related to the removal of the staircase from one end of the property, the installation of a new staircase in the centre of the property, alterations to the plan form specifically the removal of the ground floor partition and altered partitions on the first floor. 

The Planning Officer informed members that as there was an objection from Historic England, if the Committee were to approve the application it would need to be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit for them to make the final decision.

In response to member’s questions, the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer advised that:

·         A site visit had been made by the previous Conservation Officer and Leader of the Council between the previous application being refused and the submission of the current application to see if there was any way forward;

·         The applicant had done little to rectify the works apart from the insertion of an abbreviated staircase;

·         Members needed to consider the level of harm against the justification for the works, the duty to protect heritage assets and that the application was retrospective and the precedent for granting consent;                                                                                                                 

·         The building was never a Tithe Barn;

·         The building was originally two semi-detached cottages and was then knocked together as one and then further extensions were undertaken in the 18^th century;

·         The staircase was part of the original 16^th century plan form and an integral part of the building and formed a significant part of its history.  Without the staircase the building had lost its character and charm;

·         There was no material evidence to prove when the changes to the building took place;

·         The works had harmed the buildings plan form and layout resulting in an awkward layout.  A better solution could have been achieved to maintain the original plan form if the applicant had taken advice from the Council. 

The Committee was addressed by a supporter of the application who was also speaking on behalf of the Applicant.  Points raised included:

·         Extensive research about the property had been undertaken;

·         A Design and Heritage Statement had been produced and submitted with the application;

·         The level of harm was overstated by Historic England and the information was not consistent with the applicant’s knowledge of the building;

·         The property had remained as two dwellings from 1650 until the 1960’s and changed back into a single dwelling before being listed in 1988;

·         There had been at least four staircases in the last five hundred years;

·         The level of harm caused was justified and would be less than substantial;

·         Reference was made to paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

·         The optimum viable use of the property must be as a family home.

Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Turpin commented that he was concerned over the status of the building being a ‘Tithe Barn’ and referred to the changes that had taken place over the last 40 years prior to the applicant purchasing the property.  He felt that usability of the house was important and it was not practical to remove the central staircase in terms of accessing the bedrooms on the first floor.

In response to a member comment, the Conservation Officer advised that the layout as it stands with the central staircase was a very modern addition compared to the original winder staircase.  The fact that the staircase had to be altered for modern living did not outweigh the value of the historic plan form.

The Senior Planning Advisor reiterated that officers had serious concerns over the works carried out.  With regard to the term optimal viable use, he advised that members needed to take into account the options for enforcement action and whether or not it would be financially viable to make a whole set of changes to the property and whether the works would be undertaken and if not the property could fall further into disuse.  He proposed a further recommendation should members be minded to support the officer’s recommendation to include a period of negotiation to agree changes and enforcement action to take place if negotiations were unsuccessful.

During discussion, varying view were expressed by members which included the following:

·         The works carried out had been completed to an extremely high standard, preserved the building and retained some of the key features;

·         The internal works had made it suitable and appropriate for modern living;

·         The harm was not substantial;

·         The building had been so modified that there was nothing left of the original structure;

·         The building should not have been altered without consent and it was agreed that a better solution could have been achieved if the applicant had worked with the Conservation Officer;

·         The owners had a duty of care to protect listed buildings;

·         Alterations to Listed Buildings needed to be agreed and approved properly;

·         Support for negotiations to be undertaken with the applicant to agree suitable changes and works with regard to the void and the winder staircase.

During discussion, it was initially proposed and seconded to approve the application and to refer the application to the National Planning Casework Unit for them to make the final decision.  In response the Senior Planning Advisor suggested an alternative option regarding determining the application as follows: 

1.    Area West Committee is minded to refuse LBC and take enforcement action.

2.    Notwithstanding Recommendation 1 above, Area West Committee seeks a further 3 month period of negotiation between the Local Planning Authority, Historic England and the applicant with the aim of coming to an agreement on “key changes and works” to the property which serve both the merits of the heritage asset and its optimal viable use.

3.    Should the further negotiation period set out in Recommendation 2 fail to produce agreement, the recommendation to refuse LBC will be triggered and enforcement action will be promoted on the basis of a list of “key changes and works” agreed in principle by LPA officers and Historic England and finally approved by SSDC Lead Specialist and Area West Chair.

Members agreed the options provided by the Senior Planning Officer and the initial proposal to approve the application was withdrawn.

A subsequent proposal was made that Area West Committee be minded to refuse Listed Building Consent and take enforcement action subject to a further 3 month period of negotiation with the Local Planning Authority, Historic England and the applicant.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 9 in favour and 1 abstention.