Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 April 2012

Resolved:        That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 19 April 2012 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Cllrs. Mrs. Dawson and Piper declared personal interests in items 5.1 – SE/12/00382/HOUSE - 61 St Johns Road, Sevenoaks TN13 3NB, 5.2 – SE/12/00467/FUL - Finchcocks, 5 Wildernesse Mount, Sevenoaks KENT TN13 3QS, 5.4 - SE/12/00444/FUL - Woodland Chase, Blackhall Lane, Sevenoaks  TN15 0HU, 5.5 - SE/11/03230/FUL - Bucklers, The Coppice, Lower Bitchet, Bitchet Green  TN1 0NB, 5.6 - SE/12/00274/HOUSE - Bucklands, Wildernesse Avenue, Sevenoaks TN15 0EA and 5.9 - SE/12/00795/ADV - Various Locations Within Sevenoaks Town & St Johns Ward, Sevenoaksas dual hatted members of both the District Council and Sevenoaks Town Council, which had already expressed views on the matter.

Cllr. Mrs. Dawson clarified that although she lived relatively close to the site of 5.1 – SE/12/00382/HOUSE - 61 St Johns Road, Sevenoaks TN13 3NB this was not close enough to have a personal interest in the matter.

Cllr. Hogarth declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 5.5 - SE/11/03230/FUL - Bucklers, The Coppice, Lower Bitchet, Bitchet Green  TN1 0NB. He did not speak on the matter.

All Members of the Committee, except Cllr. Williamson, declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 5.2 – SE/12/00467/FUL - Finchcocks, 5 Wildernesse Mount, Sevenoaks KENT TN13 3QS.

Cllr. Miss. Thornton declared that she had discussed items 5.4 - SE/12/00444/FUL - Woodland Chase, Blackhall Lane, Sevenoaks  TN15 0HU and 5.5 - SE/11/03230/FUL - Bucklers, The Coppice, Lower Bitchet, Bitchet Green  TN1 0NB with objectors. She had also received an email regarding item 5.6 - SE/12/00274/HOUSE - Bucklands, Wildernesse Avenue, Sevenoaks TN15 0EA.

The Chairman ruled that additional information received since the despatch of the agenda be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency by reason of the special circumstances that decisions were required to be made without undue delay and on the basis of the most up to date information available.

The Chairman indicated that, with the approval of Members, she would deal first with the tree preservation orders at items 6.01 and 6.02 as the Officer concerned was not involved in any other matters on the agenda.

The Committee was informed that the Order related to an Oak tree situated at Dryhill Farm, Sundridge. A request was received from a neighbour that the tree be protected but the owners object on the grounds that serving the order was unnecessary, they had no intention of removing or damaging the tree and that the request from the neighbour was intended to make life difficult for them.

The Officer had insufficient evidence to consider the dispute between the neighbours. An assessment of the tree’s value in the landscape had been considered and the tree was found to be of value. It was for this reason alone that the Tree Preservation Order was served. The Officer estimated that the tree was between 40 and 50 years old.

            Resolved:        That the Tree Preservation Order No. 19 of 2011 be confirmed without amendments.

Officers advised that the Order related to a Beech tree situated at 33 Bullfinch Lane, Riverhead. The Order was served following concern that a neighbour would cut the tree back to the boundary. The neighbour has objected to the Order on the grounds that serving the order was unnecessary as overhanging branches had not previously been cutback and there was no current threat to the tree.

However, the Arboricultural and Landscape Officer considered that the tree could be clearly seen from the public footpath and main highway and that any unauthorised pruning works would be detrimental to the tree’s appearance.

            Resolved:        That the Tree Preservation Order No. 3 of 2012 be confirmed without amendments.

There were no public speakers against the following items. Therefore, in accordance with Part 7 3.5(e) of the constitution, the following matters were considered en bloc:

4 building banners on exterior of SDC offices. 10 flagpoles and flags on The Vine and 60 lamp-post banners located along St John's Hill, Dartford Road, Pembroke Road, London Road, Tubs Hill, St Botolphs Road and Hitchen Hatch Lane

The report advised that the application was advertising consent for 4 building banners on the exterior of the Sevenoaks District Council offices, 10 flagpoles and flags on The Vine and 60 lamp-post banners located along St John's Hill, Dartford Road, Pembroke Road, London Road, Tubs Hill, St Botolphs Road and Hitchen Hatch Lane. The signs and banners would display the logos and graphics of the London Olympic Games 2012.

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

2)         No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:-

a - endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military)

b - obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

c - hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

3)         Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

4)         Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

5)         Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

6)         All banners, flags and signs along with their associated masts and fixtures shall be fully removed and, where relevant, the land returned to its former condition, on or before 30th September 2012. This consent shall cease to have effect after this date.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 3 and 14(7) 2007.

Lamp post banners

The report advised that the application was express advertisement consent for 12 banners which would be placed in pairs on lamp posts. The lamp posts would be a selection from 18 lamp posts identified along London Road, West Kingsdown on both sides of the road from Hever Road south to Kent Close.

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

2)         No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to:-

a - endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military)

b - obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

c - hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

3)         Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

4)         Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

5)         Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

The banners shall be removed on or before 30 September 2012.

Erection of general purpose steel framed building

The report advised that the application was for the erection of a general purpose storage building measuring 18m long by 10m wide with a ridge height of 7.4m and eaves height of 6m. The building would be based around a steel portal framed building with a concrete panelled plinth and consist of olive box profiled cladding with a cement fibre roof. The building would create approximately 180m² of additional floor space for general storage purposes.

Resolved: That Officers be given delegated powers to determine the notification following the consultation period expiring on 28May 2012, the recommendation being that Prior Approval is not required.

Informatives

1)         You are advised that under reference SE/09/01822 and this application, only one scheme can be permitted to ensure that you conform to Schedule Three, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

The erection of a two storey side extension, single storey rear and front extension, and raised timber decking

The proposal was for the erection of a single storey front projection, a two storey side extension a single storey rear extension and an area of raised timber decking. Three parking spaces would be created to the front of the property.

Officers considered that the proposed extensions would preserve the character and appearance of the street scene although the street scene was generally mixed in appearance. Any potentially significant impact on the amenities of nearby dwellings could be satisfactorily mitigated by way of the conditions imposed.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Mrs. McConochie

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Hogarth

Local Member:                    -

The Chairman commented that she knew the area extremely well and believed most concerns to have been adequately addressed by the conditions, especially conditions 3 and 4 which protected the privacy of the neighbouring properties.

Other Members agreed that the street scene was already quite varied and that the proposal could add to the street scene.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission be adopted. The motion was put to the vote it was unanimously

Resolved:        That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         The materials to be used in the construction of the development shall be those indicated on the approved plan submitted 10.02.12.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the area as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         No part of the roof of the single storey rear extension hereby approved shall be used as a balcony or terrace nor shall any access be formed to it, despite the provisions of any Development Order.

To safeguard the privacy of residents as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

4)         No development shall be carried out until details of a privacy screen to be erected along the northern edge of the rear decked area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The privacy screen shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

To safeguard the privacy of residents as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

5)         The vehicle parking spaces shown on the approved Block Plan shall be provided and kept available for such use at all times and no permanent development shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the vehicle parking spaces.

To ensure a permanent retention of vehicle parking for the property as supported by policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

6)         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Demolition of existing dwelling & construction of two detached dwellings with integral single garages

Officers advised that the proposal was to demolish the existing large detached property and replace it with two detached dwellings. Both replacement dwellings would have integral garages. The large existing plot would be split down the centre and the two dwellings would be staggered.

A previous application on the site had been refused by the Committee on 17 November 2011. The present application had a reduced massing, created a greater distance to the neighbours and more of the existing vegetation would be retained.

Officers considered that, on balance, the proposed replacement dwellings would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene, or have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposal had addressed and overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     Mr. Walkington

For the Application:            Ms. Tasker

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Hogarth

Local Member:                    Cllr. Mrs. Purves

In response to a question Officers informed Members that they should have some regard to the definition of previously developed land. Land would be previously developed if previously built on. A garden would not be considered previously developed except where there was the footprint of a previous development. In this case a substantial part of the footprint of the new dwellings was previously developed. The National Planning Policy Framework states that previously developed land is a priority for development but there was no policy to say that previously developed land should not be developed. Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan would limit such development if it caused harm.

Members noted the width of the new plots would be 14.5m. The speaker against the application suggested that the width of plots o the other side of the road was about 15m.

Members commented that they considered the two sides of the road as distinct and this was supported by the Sevenoaks Residential Character Area Assessment which had been adopted since the site was last considered by the Committee. The proposal would be inappropriate as the plots would be too narrow and the bulk excessive. The development would consequently be out of keeping with the character of the area on the eastern side of the road.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded:

            “That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal would have an adverse impact on the street scene by reason of the excessive scale and extent of built development proposed on the site to the detriment of the distinctive character of the east side of Wildernesse Mount. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy and contrary to the Sevenoaks Residential Character Area Assessment.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

11 votes in favour of the motion

5 votes against the motion

Resolved:        That planning permission be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Application to modify Section 106 agreement reference 94/00821/HIST dated 13th October 1994 to allow erection of further fencing

The proposal was an application to modify a section 106 agreement to allow further fencing to divide the north western part of the paddock. When the land was converted from a school to residential land the section 106 agreement included a provision for the application site to be maintained as open pasture land. The erection of fences required prior approval from the Council.

The proposed fencing would be 1.1m timber posts (sited 3.4m apart) with single wire and mesh. Two gates would be also be located along the southern boundary fence.

Officers considered that the proposed fencing would harm the open character and appearance of the land and would set an unwelcome precedent.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Mr. Hayes

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Mrs. Cook

The applicant confirmed to the Committee that he intended to use the land to keep sheep and hens. Some Members of the committee  noted that the fencing was therefore crucial for agricultural purposes.

Other Members of the Committee were concerned that if fencing were erected it could lead in future to the further division of the rest of the land into parcels.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended by the Late Observations Sheet, to refuse the variation be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

11 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was then MOVED and duly seconded:

“That variation of the section 106 agreement be GRANTED as the planning obligation continued to serve a purpose and would serve that purpose equally well if it had effect subject to the modifications specified in the application.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

11 votes in favour of the motion

5 votes against the motion

Resolved:        That variation of the section 106 agreement be GRANTED as the planning obligation continued to serve a purpose and would serve that purpose equally well if it had effect subject to the modifications specified in the application.

The erection of a detached dwelling and double garage to the front of Woodland Chase to include new access to existing dwelling, as amended by revised plans received on 24.04.2012

The proposal sought planning permission to erect a detached dwelling and garage within the existing front garden to Woodland Chase. The site was within the built confines of Sevenoaks and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to the Wildernesse Conservation area.

Previously permission had been granted on appeal for the erection of five new dwellings and alterations to garaging to the three dwellings (Godwins, Brackens and Woodland Chase), however that permission had now lapsed.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     Mr. Driessen

For the Application:            Ms Tasker

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Hogarth

In response to a question Officers confirmed that since the appeal decision the definition of previously developed land had changed so that gardens would not fall into the definition. However the new rules did not preclude development on gardens if it did not harm the character of the area. The Inspector had decided that the lapsed permission would not have caused harm to the character of the area. The Inspector had not said the development was acceptable because the land was previously developed.

Members commented that the rear garden was relatively small considering the number of residents that would occupy the new dwelling and the size of other gardens in that road. Additionally they suggested that the proposed dwelling was excessive, bearing in mind the size of the plot. It was suggested that the dwelling would be too close to other properties, especially since an extension had been added to Godwins.

The Local Member, who sits on the Committee, added that, even though it was within the town confines, the area had a distinctive, general feeling of openness. She considered that the property would be too close to the road and out of keeping with the rest of the road. Officers explained that it would be 20m from the road.

Officers further advised that the permission granted on appeal, which included a dwelling on this site, had approved development in principal. Members had to consider whether circumstances had materially changed or whether the relevant policies had changed. Members should be aware that unless these arguments were relied on the Council could lose an appeal and face an order for costs from the other party.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended by the Late Observations Sheet, to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

Following a question the Chairman confirmed that the application dwelling was smaller than that in the lapsed permission and that the size of the plot had not changed.

A Member stated that overdevelopment for the size of the plot was the view of most Members.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

At 9.25 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the Committee for the convenience of Members and Officers. The meeting resumed at 9.38 p.m..

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling

The proposal sought planning permission to erect a single storey dwelling as a replacement for an existing bungalow and outbuilding. The replacement dwelling would be a single storey building of contemporary design. It was roughly T shaped in footprint with flat roofs layered on top of one another.

The existing building was designated as a dwelling under a lawful development certificate and therefore benefited from permitted development rights. The applicant had submitted a fallback position that the existing dwelling could be extended from an existing floor area of 67 sqm to 291 sqm without planning permission, alongside a retained existing garage or outbuilding of 70 sqm. The proposal would cover a smaller footprint and would be lower than the fallback position.

Officers considered that the scheme was clearly contrary to development plan policies and advice contained within the NPPF. However the replacement dwelling was considered to be a better alternative than the fallback and as such very special circumstances existed to allow the proposal.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    Mr. Morgan

For the Application:            Mr. Osborne

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    -

In response to a question Officers confirmed that some of the trees to the south would be removed but a number were protected by Tree Protection Orders. The property would be well divorced from neighbours as it was between 70-80m to Greensleves and was well screened.

Members noted that the design was very modern. Officers explained that the unconventional, flat roof design helped reduce the height of the proposal and so would be less noticeable from the road.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission, as amended by the Late Observations Sheet, be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

5 votes against the motion

Resolved:        That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         No development shall be carried out on the land until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the area as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         The development shall achieve a Code for Sustainable homes minimum rating of level 3, and shall include at least a 10% reduction in the total carbon emissions through the on-site installation and implementation of decentralised, renewable or low-carbon energy sources. Evidence shall be provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Proposed demolition of the existing porch and double garage and erection of a new porch, single storey rear extension, two storey front extension and replacement two storey link extension between the pool house to the main dwelling

The proposal sought the demolition of the existing porch and double garage and erection of a new porch, single storey rear extension, two storey front extension and replacement two storey link extension between the pool house to the main dwelling. The development was within the built confines of Sevenoaks and was named as contributing to the Wildernesse Conservation Area.

Officers considered that the development would respect the context of the site and would not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene and would preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The development would also not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of nearby dwellings.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Ms. Daniels

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Hogarth

Local Member:                    -

At 10.27 p.m. it was MOVED by Cllr. Walshe and duly seconded that, in accordance with rule 16.1 of Part 2 of the Constitution, Members extend the meeting beyond 10.30 p.m. to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

            9 votes in favour of the motion

            0 vote against the motion

Resolved:        That the meeting be extended past 10.30 p.m. to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda.

The local Member, who sat on the Committee noted that the local residents’ association had not submitted an objection to the proposal.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously –

Resolved:        That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         The materials to be used in the construction of the development shall be those indicated on the approved plan as detailed on the application form.

To ensure that the appearance of the development enhances the character and appearance of the locality as supported by Policy EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:  Site Plan, Block Plan, Design and Access Statement, Drawing No's PL-101, PL-102, PL-200-206, PL-400, PL-401, received 01.02.12 and 07.02.12.

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Proposed construction of 2 new apartments with a link to the existing building. (resubmission of previous application ref SE/11/02774/FUL)

The proposal was for the extension of the property side and rear to infill the gap between the building and no.44. This would result in two additional self-contained flats. The extension had been designed in a Victorian style to reflect the character of the original building and with a gable effect to reflect the others facing onto the junction of South Park and Argyle Road. The site was inside the Granville Road/Eardley Road Conservation Area.

Officers considered that the application overcame the concerns of scale and design which resulted in the refusal of an application on the site on 16 February 2012. It was acceptable in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area, the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties and the availability of parking. However the proposal did not yet adequately provide for an affordable housing contribution.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Mr. Thompson

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Hogarth

Local Member:                    -

Members agreed there had been a significant improvement since the previous application on the site was referred to the Committee.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously –

Resolved:          RECOMMENDATION A:        That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the receipt of an acceptable legal agreement, within 28 days of the date of this Committee, to provide a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision:

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The application fails to make an appropriate provision for affordable housing contrary to the requirements of Policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011.

2)         No development shall be carried out on the land until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

To ensure that the appearance of the development enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as supported by Policy EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         No development shall be carried out on the land until full details of soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.  Those details shall include:-planting plans (identifying existing planting and trees, plants and trees to be retained and new planting);-a schedule of new plants and trees (noting species, size of stock at time of planting and proposed number/densities); and-a programme of implementation. Soft landscaping works shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the additional apartments hereby permitted or otherwise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Replace existing single glazed windows with white painted wooden double glazed windows

The proposal was for listed building consent to replace all the existing windows at the property with white painted wood double glazed windows. The windows would not be like-for-like repair or replacement and the changes would alter the fabric and appearance of the existing Grade II listed building. The report advised that the listing for the property described the windows as nineteenth century and modern whilst the building itself was a Sixteenth Century timber-framed house.

Officers considered that clear and convincing justification, as required under the National Planning Policy Framework, for the alteration of all of the windows had not been demonstrated.  It was felt that only four of the windows had sufficient justification to be replaced due to their condition.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Mr. Monger

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Miss. Stack

In response to a question the Conservation Officer confirmed she had attended the site and poked the timbers to check their integrity.

Members noted the comments of the applicant that the majority of the windows would not fully close and a number of the windows looked acceptable because they had been temporarily maintained by woodfiller, putty and paint.

They were also concerned by the suggestion from the applicant that he would be unable to afford to replace all of the windows if he only had permission to replace them piecemeal. Members added that if carried out over an extended time then the replacement windows may be of varying styles.

It was suggested that if the windows were not adequately replaced then this could cause harm to the timber-framed building.

Officers reminded Members that there was a presumption in favour of conservation and that features from different ages, such as nineteenth century windows, can contribute to as part of the listing. Guidance suggested that, in such cases, the windows should be replaced only as and when necessary. The applicant had not provided evidence that all, or the majority, of the windows needed replacing.

It was MOVED by the Cllr. Davison and was duly seconded:

“That the item be deferred for the applicant to provide an independent survey on the condition of the windows in the property.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

7 votes in favour of the motion

5 votes against the motion

Resolved:        That the item be deferred for the applicant to provide an independent survey on the condition of the windows in the property.