The proposal was for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling and attached garage.

The report advised that the Kippington Road and Oakhill Road CAMP had identified Cavendish House as “a building contributing to character”. As a heritage asset under section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, unless a particular exemption applied, there was a presumption against demolition.

The item had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee on 20 September 2012, together with the application for planning permission, in order for the applicant to produce a full structural survey. Members had believed information on the structural soundness of existing buildings was required before a decision could be made, due to the weight put on this matter by the public speakers.

Officers did notconsider that the submitted information provided an overriding justification to meet the exemption criteria set out in NPPF. They did not accept that all reasonable uses of the site had been lost, nor that it was not possible to use the heritage asset viably in the medium term. Only maintenance and upgrading works, typical for the age of the building, were necessary to upgrade standards of living. The complete loss of the designated heritage asset could not be justified.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Justine Digweed

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Mrs Hunter

Some Members considered that there was no special architectural merit in the existing structure and it did not fit the definition of “arts and crafts”. Reports from the applicant indicated that renovation was uneconomical and unlikely.

Others noted that the conservation area had continued to develop and the proportion of new properties was growing. This was changing the nature of the area. The reports produced by the applicant had only shown that expensive maintenance was required, not that the existing buildings needed to be demolished.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse Conservation Area Consent be adopted.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

5 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was MOVED and was duly seconded:

“That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED as the demolition of the property would not harm or detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and that the proposal was in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN23 of the Local Plan, SP1 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.  Any conditions to be agreed by Officers with local Members.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

8 votes in favour of the motion

3 votes against the motion

Resolved: That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED as the demolition of the property would not harm or detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and that the proposal was in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN23 of the Local Plan, SP1 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.  Any conditions to be agreed by Officers with local Members.