Agenda item

1 five-bedroom two storey with basement level detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

1 five-bedroom two storey with basement level detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

30779/APP/2010/1108

This application seeked permission to demolish the locally listed 'Oakhurst' and erect a 5-bedroom detached property with a similar siting, scale and design. The officer report stated that although permission had already been granted for the renovation, refurbishment and extension of Oakhurst, the applicants claimed that the property was structurally unsound and in too poor a state of repair for its renovation to be viable and a building survey had been submitted in support of the application.

The Council had produced an independent building survey that suggested that other options were available to allow the restoration of the building that could be viable. In the absence of information to demonstrate that all options for the renovation of the building had been fully explored, it was considered that the demolition of the locally listed building was unacceptable.

The detailed design of the replacement building was also not considered acceptable and as evidence of bats has been found in the roof of the building, additional surveys were required. No information had been provided as regards energy conservations and a contribution from the new building towards renewable energy. The application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Lesley Crowcroft spoke on behalf of the lead petitioner on both items 9 and 10.
• The petitioners supported the observations of the planning officers.
• She was at the site a few days ago and said it was in the condition of a builders yard. That at least 75 trees and shrubs had been removed before the application had come to Committee. This was not reflected in the plans submitted to Committee at the meeting.
• The petitioners felt that a new build would be totally inappropriate, that garden-grabbing could also be an issue.
• That the Council should adequately protect Oakhurst and that it would be great loss if it was demolished.
• The person who built Oakhurst and its sister building was an historic person.
• Petitioners felt that the developers had not given sufficient information to justify knocking down the building.
• The petitioners asked that the Committee upheld the officers’ recommendation on both applications for Oakhurst.
• She also asked for this to go to the Planning Inspectorate.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Ward Councillor Richard Lewis sent his comments to the Committee on both items 9 and 10. He strongly opposed the application for the destruction of Oakhurst. He stated that the original planning consent was granted with the condition that Oakhurst was refurbished and retained in situ. Without the condition the original consent would not have been granted. That there were very few houses on the Copseworrd Estate that had much character and loosing Oakhurst would be a tragedy.

Members felt that the developers had not done a good job of looking after this property. That it had been neglected and not enough information was given to justify knocking it down.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum