Issue - meetings

Alteration to car parking layout, resurfacing and expansion of hardstanding. Installation of a sunken paving area with pergola and a standalone outbuilding for WC and store. Installation of a staff cycle shelter. Erection of a boundary fence and planting against Field End Road. Various landscape planting and paving to external pergola sitting area. (Application for Planning Permission)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Alteration to car parking layout, resurfacing and expansion of hardstanding. Installation of a sunken paving area with pergola and a standalone outbuilding for WC and store. Installation of a staff cycle shelter. Erection of a boundary fence and planting against Field End Road. Various landscape planting and paving to external pergola sitting area. (Application for Planning Permission)

Officers presented items 7 and 8 together.

Since the submission both applications had been appealed to the planning inspectorate on non-determination grounds. Therefore, a planning decision will be made through the planning appeal process rather than via the Committee. Officers were, however, presenting their recommendation that will be brought forward within the forthcoming appeal.

Officers highlighted the addendum, noting that since the publication of the report, a pre-Committee site inspection had been undertaken by officers who noted that there appeared to be further landscaping work within the site cartilage which did not form part of the information submitted. It was also noted that the first reason for refusal included cumulative impact of the proposed landscaping, as such no amendments were necessary to the recommendation.

Officers recommended three reasons for refusal for the full application, on design, highways and landscaping grounds.

For the listed building consent, it would be a reason for refusal on design grounds.

Members noted their disappointment that this application was going to appeal before even coming to the Planning Committee. Members agreed with officers’ concerns. This was a vey old building that needed to be protected. There were also issues around the design and information missing from the application.

Members further noted that the application was out of character with the area.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, as per officer’s recommendations.