Agenda item
This application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Coley due to concerns with the building being listed and being in a Conservation Area, the introduction of a stairway access to the first floor, change of use of the first floor to residential, the building is located on the edge of a busy working dock and parking issues.
This application seeks planning permission for the external staircase, balcony, window to a door to the quay elevation and a window to a door to the north west elevation.
Minutes:
Members were informed that this application had also been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Coley due to his concerns with the building being listed and situated in a Conservation Area, the introduction of a stairway access to the first floor, change of use of the first floor to residential, and that the building is located on the edge of a busy working dock and parking issues.
This application sought planning permission for the external staircase, balcony, window to a door to the quay elevation and a window to a door to the northwest elevation.
Members were aware that the application site was located within the settlement development boundary as defined within both the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017. The application was located within the Conservation Area and adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building.
It was reported that ECC Heritage had been consulted and had an objection to the proposed balcony but had no objections to the other elements subject to conditions relating to the staircase details and further details of the windows and doors.
The proposals were not considered by Officers to cause any impact upon the neighbouring amenities.
The Committee was informed that Mistley Parish Council had recommended this application for refusal and that 7 letters of objection had been received (with two from the same address).
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 approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (TF) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting whereby the Recommendation in section 8 of the report should read as follows:-
“That the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission for the development subject to
the conditions stated in section 8.1.”
The update sheet also reported that three additional letters of representation had been received (with two from the same address) together with the officers’ response thereto.
Guy Williamson, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Derek Bell, a local resident, spoke against the application.
Councillor Coley, a local Ward Member, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Planning Officers’ response thereto:- |
|
A member of the Committee referred Members to 4.2-4.3 regarding the balcony. If the balcony was omitted, there were elements in principle that were acceptable. |
Separate Planning Applications had been and could be submitted to the Committee according to Planning Policies. |
|
A Councillor raised various concerns regarding the foliage, the staircase and the bin storage areas. |
The Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of the outside alterations, the impact as a result of the staircase can be recognised as an acceptable material consideration. |
|
A member of the committee referred to 6.15 regarding the character of the building not contending with the bay window. |
No response. |
|
It was raised by a member of the Committee concerns regarding the detrimental effect of the staircase. Could the staircase be moved to an alternate position? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of where the staircase has been sited, this depends on the applicant’s request. The application should be taken as it stands. |
|
4.3 - Can a Planning Officer clarify the effects of the balcony? |
The Planning Officer clarified point 4.3 regarding the acceptable balcony features from the Heritage Society’s perspective. |
The Chairman requested approval from members of the Committee to continue the meeting past the allowed period of 3 hours as required by Council Procedure Rule 35.1. It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Harris and RESOLVED that the Committee continued its deliberations.
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor White and RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred for the following reasons:
“To allow for further negotiations by Officers with the applicants on the application in relation to the following:-
• omission/amendment of balcony detail to rear/river side elevation to address ECC Heritage objections; and
• consideration of appropriate screening to external staircase to address overlooking/private amenity issues with neighbouring property.”
Supporting documents:
PDF 285 KB