Issue - meetings

Proposal for removal of a section of wall to create a vehicular access and erection

of gates.

Application for removal of a section of wall to create a vehicular access and erection of gates.

This application was before the committee following members indicating there were “minded to refuse” at the previous meeting.

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation that the application be approved, Councillor Surtees proposed that the application be refused due to the development having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. It was seconded by Councillor Crooks and

RESOLVED – Permission be refused for the following reasons:

The development, by virtue of the loss of part of an important wall within Desford conservation area, would result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and is therefore contrary to policies DM11 and DM12 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD 2016.

Application for removal of a section of wall to create a vehicular access and erection of gates.

Late items:

Introduction:-

An additional condition is required to ensure the integrity of the wall adjoining Little Lane.

Further clarity is provided over the concerns raised in relation to a tree on the site.

Appraisal:-

Design and impact upon the character of the area

The existing wall along Little Lane in which the proposed access is to be constructed contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Due to the age and maintenance of the wall it has deteriorated in areas. To ensure that the works to the wall are undertaken appropriately, a Construction Method Statement should be secured through a planning condition. The CMS would require the applicant to detail how the works will be undertaken, whether any machinery will be used, the extent of materials to be removed and rebuilt etc. Planning permission is required for the removal or partial removal of a wall within a conservation area. The CMS would control the extent of the works and ensure that no materials are unnecessarily removed. Any works which are not detailed in the CMS would be considered unauthorised and could be subject to enforcement action.

Other matters

Concern has been raised regarding the removal of a tree from the northern end of the rear garden of the application site which would be used for the hardstanding which serves the access. No consent was gained for the removal of the tree which is protected due to the siting within the conservation area and therefore these works are unauthorised. The matter has previously considered by Planning Enforcement and it was considered that the siting of the tree within the rear garden and the limited size of the tree resulted in the tree being largely screened by the existing wall and made a limited contribution to the conservation area. Therefore, it was considered not to be expedient to enforce against the unauthorised works and no replacement planting or other remedial works will be required which the proposed works could impede.

Recommendation:- Approve subject to conditions as set out in paragraph 11.3 of the case officer’s committee report and the following condition:

4. Prior to commencement of any development, including demolition, hereby permitted, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Any works not detailed within the Construction Method Statement shall be considered to be unauthorised.

Reason: To ensure the integrity of the wall adjoining Little Lane and its continuing positive contribution to the conservation area to accord with Policies DM10, DM11 and DM12 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Application for removal of a section of wall to create vehicular access and erection of gates.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to conditions, it was moved by Councillor Surtees and seconded by Councillor Crooks that permission be refused as loss of a section of the wall would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area, which was characterised by the walls. It was noted that, in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the Planning Committee procedure rules, the motion would be deemed to be a motion of “minded to refuse”. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the committee be minded to refuse permission in accordance with paragraph 2.12 of the procedure rules.