Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning & Community) - A.2 - 24-00280-FUL – Red House High Street, Great Oakley, Harwich, CO12 5AQ

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.

Minutes:

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:-

 

  • “Update to the second paragraph of refusal reason one to make reference to Paragraph 216 of the NPPF, and to read as follows:

Paragraph 215 of the NNPF confirms that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. Paragraph 216 adds that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

 

  • Update paragraph 8.42 to read as follows:

In accordance with Natural England's standing advice the application site and surrounding habitat have been assessed for potential impacts on protected species. The proposal is for a replacement building and infill extension to provide for three flats and a multi-use community facility. Whilst the existing building would be demolished, the site is within a heavily urbanised location with no connectivity to bat foraging routes, and the building itself is of solid construction, and it is therefore considered that the proposal is unlikely to adversely impact upon protected species or habitats.”

 

Terry Richmond, Chairman of the Great Oakley Community Hub and applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Patrick Wooding, a member of the public, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Councillor Bush, caller-in and the local Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Councillor Bush then left the room when the Committee went into their deliberations and decision-making process.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Has this application come to the Committee because Councillor Bush called it in?

Yes, it is from a call-in that this application is before Members, but it is also here for transparency.

If Members were to refuse this application, what happens to the building?

Officers cannot answer that question as it would be down to the owner of the building to decide.

Was there an infill between the two buildings in the same way as this building?

Yes, there was a similar scheme which was similar to this one.

Is there anything legally that would prevent the applicant from building a like-for-like building?

To replace the building, even like-for-like, it would need planning permission.

If it was just a replacement building being done, could it be done without planning permission?

Not lawfully in planning terms.

What about under normal circumstances?

It would depend on case-by-case, on this occasion it would not be as simple as that with the comments received by ECC Heritage. Like-for-like would not replicate what is historically there.

Essex County Council would rather this building fell down than be used?

That is not what they are saying. Their comments are that there is insufficient justification for the building to be removed. Officers had requested an additional survey to understand that the building is beyond repair. The survey has come back to say that it is possible to convert the building, but it would require extensive work. ECC comments are that works have not been justified given that the survey confirms it is possible to convert the building.

Would the applicants need planning permission to rebuild?

The applicants would need planning permission for demolition and planning permission for a new building.

Does the Council have policies relating to parking and could you explain what they are?

There is not a specific policy in the Local Plan, but TDC are abiding by the Essex Parking standards, and they require that a one bedroom property would need one parking space, two or more bedrooms would need two parking spaces, therefore on the basis of this proposal, it would require 5 parking spaces.

Is there room around the building for 5 parking spaces?

There is no parking. Essex County Council raised an objection on that basis.

If an application came to Officers for a two-bedroom and three-bedroom property with no parking, what weight would be given to that application?

The parking provision could be considered acceptable with less provision but with no parking it would have to be weighed up and to see if the Highways Authority would have an objection. It would be a similar recommendation to the one in front of Members.

What would Officers say would be on the list of balances for this application?
  1. Loss of the Red House building results in less than substantial harm. The replacement like-for-like would not be as historical as the building that is there at the moment. The Community facility area is a public benefit, and three new properties are also, although the benefits of this are limited given the Council can currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. There could be more weight attached to this in the future following alterations to the NPPF and the impact that would have to the five-year housing supply, however that cannot be taken into consideration at this time.

There are no parking spaces when the Parking Standards would require a total of five spaces for a scheme of this size. In some instances, Officers could accept reduced parking provision given the site is within a good, sustainable location, however a drop from five to zero spaces is significant. On a previous scheme, a lack of parking was, on balance, considered to be acceptable on the basis that the wider development provided strong public benefits as it retained the existing building. These benefits do not exist with this current application.

Is the Red House building a listed building?

It is not a listed building; it is a non-designated asset.

If the building was granted to be demolished and rebuilt, would that harm the conservation area and set a precedent for other conservation areas?

For demolition and to rebuild, there would be a need for planning permission. It would result in some harm to the conservation area. Any development done; it is done in a sympathetic manner. Every scheme needs to be considered on its own individual merits.

Has a viability study been done to help the Committee make its decision?

In the original submission a survey report was supplied to say that the structure was not able to be converted, but it was not undertaken by a conservation accredited engineer This has since been undertaken and confirmed that it is possible to repair the building, but it would require extensive work to do so.

If the Committee refuse the application to demolish, then years down the line something happened to the building, would Officers ask the owners to do repairs work? Did ECC Heritage come down in person to look at the building?

ECC Heritage have come and visited the site previously, but Officers cannot guarantee that they have as part of this current application.

Because the building is not a listed building, there is nothing to maintain it as a listed building. As a normal building, the owners would be obligated under the enforcement powers as an untidy site to clean the area.

If this building was rebuilt like-for-like, what is the impact on the neighbouring property?

The Maybush Inn is not listed. The question related to building control matters which is not for your consideration for this application.

 

It was moved by Councillor White and seconded by Councillor Everett that the application be approved contrary to the Officer recommendation of refusal. On being put to the vote, that motion was declared LOST on the Chairman’s casting vote.

 

It was moved by Councillor Fowler, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reasons as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.2) and including the addition to the second paragraph of refusal reason one as detailed within the Officer Update Sheet, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained; and

 

2)    the sending of the informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: