Demolition of Red House to allow construction of two conventional arrangement dwellings comprising one 2-bedroom dwelling and one 3-bedroom dwelling, and an infill extension between Red House and The Maybush Inn to form a further one bedroom flat incorporating a multi use community facility to the Public House at ground level.

Earlier on in the meeting as detailed in Minute 3 above, Councillor Bush had declared an interest in that he was the local Ward Member and also a member of the Great Oakley Community Hub.

Members were told that the application was before the Planning Committee following a call-in request from Councillor Bush in the event the application was recommended for refusal. The application sought full planning permission for the demolition of Red House followed by the construction of a like-for-like replacement building and infill extension to create three flats and a multi-use community facility.

The Committee was informed that the site fell within the Settlement Development Boundary for Great Oakley and that the enhanced community facilities were in accordance with Policy HP2, and therefore the principle of the development was acceptable. In addition, Officers had considered that there was sufficient private amenity space and the impact to neighbours was not significantly harmful.

Officers told Members that the Red House was a non-designated heritage asset that made a positive contribution to the area despite its condition and some previous inappropriate alterations, and its demolition would result in a level of less than substantial harm to the Great Oakley Conservation Area. Following the submission of a Structural Engineering Inspection Report, that had confirmed that the building could be retained and repaired, albeit with extensive works, there was not clear and convincing justification for the complete loss of the significance of the building and the consequential harm to the setting of the Great Oakley Conservation Area.

Members heard that despite some amendments/improvements to the design, the proposed replacement building would not preserve or enhance the character of the area, lacking the authenticity and inherent historic interest of the existing building. On this occasion Officers had considered that the public benefits of the scheme, including the proposed multi-use community area and extension to the garden area, did not outweigh that identified level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.

The Committee was also told that ECC Highways had also raised an objection due to insufficient parking provision and the impacts that would generate to the highway network. Officers had acknowledged the proposal presented an enhancement to the District’s community facilities, that there was no parking for the existing building and the site was within a sustainable location, however on balance they had concluded that the harm through insufficient parking provision was such that it justified a recommendation of refusal.

Officers made Members aware that under the NPPF in paragraph 212, Members were obligated to give great weight to the assets within a conservation area.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members before the meeting which was as follows:-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6