Agenda item

Demolition of existing two-storey detached building (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition of existing two-storey detached building (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

This was an application for conservation area consent to demolish the two storey detached building on site known as the Swan Public House.

The application site was located on the eastern edge of the Harefield Village centre, directly opposite the village green and pond. It was sited on the south western side of Breakspear Road North, some 70m to the east of its junction with High Street and was roughly rectangular in shape, tapering towards the rear with a 24m frontage and an overall depth of 42m. The site comprises a detached two-storey building, which was formerly in use as a public house known as The Swan, but was vacant and the site boarded up. The main elevation of the building was set back from the front boundary of the site by approximately 3.3m to 4.0m and this area was used for car parking which appeared to have involved overhanging of the public footway.

The extent of consultation carried out on this scheme and the responses received were detailed on the planning application ref. 3877/APP/2010/2200, which was being reported to this committee. The comments raised by the petitioners and the individual responses mainly involved planning issues and were not particularly relevant to this application for conservation area consent.

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 petitioners:

·        Mr Jeremy Williamson spoke on behalf of the petition submitted to the Council.

·        Most of those that signed the petition were against the design and impact on the village of the application.

·        The documents produced by the Council stated what the residents felt very well.

·        The siting, design and bulk were what they were objecting too.

·        The rear of the proposed building would project a long way.

·        The privacy and view would effect neighbouring gardens.

·        The lead petitioner stated that they had no objection to a change of use, but the objection was to the style of the building proposed.

·        The artist impression showed width of proposal was contrary to the street scene.

·        There would be a great deal of over-looking on adjoining on neighbouring gardens.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·        Mr Bill MacLeod noted corrections on the officer presentation: there were no rooms proposed for the roof in the application submitted.

·        He also stated that there would be no balcony at the rear.

·        The existing building was not a statutory listed building.

·        The building had been extended and modified very poorly over the years.

·        The petition made no reference to conservation area.

·        The agent questioned the points raised about the width of the proposal.

·        The building on the site would no longer be domestic in scale.

·        The questions raised about the roof panels were misplaced; in the future solar panels could be built onto the roof.

·        The size and style of the proposal was an acceptable replacement. The density was marginally over.

·        The replacement building was well designed and had a positive impact on the street scene.

Members noted the points made by petitioners and the agent with regard to the floors, rooms, roof and amenity space.

Members discussed the concept of the design and whether the scheme fitted in with the community and local environment. Members agreed that it would not.

Members felt strongly against demolishing a building over 100 years old without good reason. The building was a period building and Members felt the application would not fit in with the street scene. Members were happy to go with the officer’s recommendation.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda and amendment to reason to take out reference to planning application.