Transcript

with deciding this if the town council hadn't had a proper say in this? Sorry, yeah. So, the application has gone through a number of amendments. So, for example, when the application first came in, extended across to this boundary and, as there was mentioned, different suite of materials. Generally speaking, we do do re-consults if we think there's a very substantial change to the development. My assessment was that the development that is in front of us now is broadly quite similar to the original scheme that was submitted. We've tweaked around the edges a lot to try and get our conservation team on board, which they now are. The parishman they were consulted issued a recommendation to approve with the granting us delegated authority to make a different decision. So, in this case, I don't necessarily think there's a prejudicial argument in terms of the parish council. Okay, could you just briefly say what the differences are in the amended scheme? So, well, as has been discussed, we have gone through numerous iterations on the proposal. So, I can't give you a full breakdown of the changes on every single one. As I said, the general form of the extension has been a single story of our extension of a similar depth and height for the entirety of the application. We've been changing all the details in terms of the specific finish on the roof form. There was previously a roof fly, for example, there's differences in how the windows are laid out and the nature of the windows and the doors and how those are all related to each other. And, yes, as discussed, there's been some changes in the proposed material finishes as well. So, there have been a lot of tweaks on various aspects of this scheme. Councillor Waid. Thank you, Chummy. I've got two questions. And the first one was on the same topic that's richness in Council of England based. I've sat on a parish council planning committee, not now, obviously, where just the colour of something and the type of light has gone back for the parish council to have reviewed it. So, if there have been considerable iterations of the change of the design, I would have thought that it shouldn't go back to the parish council for the decision. Now, that's the first first question or point anyway. Second, the second one is, why can't I understand about this? It's in an area that is protected, yet the times in the houses on each side have got extensions. And I'm just trying to understand that the planning regulation around putting an extension in this situation, because clearly, the one on that picture with the black and white that's about as different from the original structure you could possibly get. It's not sympathetic with it. The other one, on the other side, is perhaps a little bit more sympathetic, but they're both different. Can you explain to me how planning allows that to happen? Thank you. So, when we designate a property, either as a wider area as a conservation area or a specific building as a listed building, that doesn't necessarily mean that development is intrinsically unacceptable on those plots. It does mean, obviously, that there is a higher bar that we set in terms of, as has been mentioned, one of the key tests that we're looking at is we have to preserve or enhance the existing building. Obviously, there is a wide range of opinions on how you preserve and enhance the character or appearance of a building. That doesn't necessarily always mean fully replicating the existing features of the building, because sometimes that can end up detracting from the existing special character and quality of the building. In this case, obviously, as you say, there have been other extensions in the surrounding area that have different forms, and the consensus that our conservation officer reached was that, in this case, we felt that the post-design subject to suitable conditions to ensure that the materials are of good quality would integrate with that existing sort of character and design. Obviously, you can come to a different decision if you are minded to do so. As we discussed, the test is, you know, does it preserve or enhance the existing building? And then, obviously, when we're looking at the listed building in more detail as well, the sort of special character of the listed building. I'll just come back on the first point, surely. So, is it back to the why we didn't go send back to the Liberty Town Council? Is that a judgment call? Yes, yes. Council Hawkins. Looking at the building that is proposed, you can't really call that sympathetic, can you? It's just a square box in the blood on it. I mean, if you're going to do put an extension like that, why don't they follow one side there, which has an apex roof? That fits in so well, because that doesn't fit in at all. It's out of character, in my view. This is what we're actually looking at. You might have a different opinion, Council Hawkins, but what we're looking at is what we have here in front of us. Councilor. Thank you, Chair. Can I just say we're looking at a situation as I understand it, black or white, we either accept the recommendations of our officer on his review and all the information that he's put forward over the years, or we disapprove it, and any litigation afterwards between neighbors or whatever, it's not our problem. We are just addressing this plan, aren't we? That's as I understand it. Sorry, I didn't have my mic on. We're in debate, Councilor Dowd. Yes, I think looking at this on its merits as a planning application, I'm quite satisfied that, yes, the extension isn't exactly the same as the original building, but it has a practical purpose, it works well within its context. I'm happy with what I'm seeing. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else have anything to say, Councilor Wade? I just, back to the very point, it is an extension on either side. How can you refuse one in the middle? You know, it's been fair about this. You can't really, the extension on either side, well, not none of them are exactly significantly sympathetic. How can you avoid one object to one in the middle? You can't, you have to support it, really. It's being firmly be fair if nothing else. Does anybody else have anything to say, Councilor Slee? Regarding the litigation side of it, if we didn't hear anything about that, we would just review it. Exactly, as Councillor Wade said, there's two extensions. The next guys want to extend in their property. Why would we, apart from choosing a different design and perhaps in a few years' time, it changes through its history, which, I mean, we never had byfold doors a few years ago. So why would we turn it down if we didn't know anything about it? I understand exactly the reasons why we're looking at this. Thank you. If there's nothing more to be said, we have to go to a vote. So I need a proposal. The recommendation is to grant, so I need a proposal. I will come back to you, a proposal and a seconder. I have to come back to the speakers, but are you proposing it, Councillor Dowd? Yes. Yes. Okay. And I'll need a seconder. Councillor Glass. I'll now come back to the speakers. You have one minute each, so first of all, I'll go to Mrs. Teeter Hart. You have one minute. I have nothing more to add. I think it's all being said. Thank you. Mr. O'Rourke, really? Sorry. One minute. Thank you. Just to be quite clear, between the retrospective application last year and this, we're looking at a 150% increase in the floor area on the ground floor of this property, a property that's on the market. So I would question the motivation for this application. Totally agree with Councillor Wade on the fairness of an application and an extension in this context. We're just concerned about good design and that's simply it. It's not the principle of an extension that we're objecting to in the slightest, not at all. Conservation have not commented on the last two iterations of the plans either, as well as the town council or sorry, the parish council. So that is a concern to us. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. We can't speculate on what the present owners might be doing in the future. That's not what the application is about. Councillor England. Thank you very much. Going back to this, the actual application that was given to LPTC is not the one that's in front of us today. And for a case officer to say there's been several tweaking, the conservation officers haven't been the same concurrent conservation officer throughout this process. My will is to have the right extension with the right materials, not just making it fit because both left and right properties have it. The word conservation is there for a reason. And that's the reason I've drawn this to your attention today. So I feel in the fairness that this should be reconsulted on and made sure it's fit for purpose, not just purpose. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now go to the vote then. Recommendation is to grant. That's been proposed by Councillor Dowd. Seconded by Councillor Glass. All of those in favour, please raise your hands. Eight, those against. Were there any abstentions? So that's been granted. So now we have to go to the second part of this. And I think you need, you have something extra to say. So the pages are broadly the same as we previously just discussed. There are a slightly different suite of conditions associated with this application, just associated with the differences in legislation between full planning applications and listed building constraints. But broadly the sort of same key issues are there and relevant. Obviously a greater weight is placed on the importance of the special character and significance of the listed building associated with the listed building consent application. So I'll do take that to account. But then again, the conservation officer has commented and raised no objections subject to the conditions recommended. Subject 2 conditions, again, we've been asked to grant this. Again, I will need to have somebody to propose and somebody to second. And I have a proposal, Councillor Cresser, and a seconder, Councillor Dowd. So this, we're now voting for the listed building alteration, listed building consent. Recommendation is to grant. All of those, please in favour, please raise your hands. 8 against and abstain, none. So again, that's been granted. Thank you very much. Members, don't need the Chamber, please, because apparently the mics were off when we took the vote on the crockets. I just need to confirm the vote. We won't take it again because two of the people have now left the Chamber, but that was to grant. Okay, thank you very much. And now for those of you that can stay, we do have lunch and you can get to know our new guide here. And you, Chief Planning Officer, he'll be joining us for lunch and you can ask. [Music]