Agenda item

Retrospective planning permission for replacement gate.

Cllr Jeans left the meeting at 5.15pm, he did not take part in debate or vote on this application.

Public Participation

Rita Pope (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark then presented the application for retrospective planning permission for a replacement gate.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, there were no questions.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as stated above.

The applicant noted that since owning the cottage in 2016, they had renovated it to a high standard. The gates had been designed to ensure the cottage was always visible. The PC had not objected, and the application had been supported by Highways. The sliding mechanism was felt to have been the best option.

The Division Member Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke in support of application, noting that the gate was of a unique style. The previous gate had opened onto the road which was now illegal. The PC had no objections and a lot of the PC Cllrs pass this property frequently and were aware of the gate. The gate did not go against the Neighbourhood Plan, and was a safe option for the family and other users. 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of approval, against Officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr John Smale.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the cottage was an important 17^th century building, and to put a structure of this design was inappropriate and not in keeping with the surroundings.

When a cottage of this period, in a conservation area is taken on, respect for the restrictions and requirements of such a grade II listed building need to be accepted.

The original style of wooden gate should be reinstated.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

The motion was not carried.

Cllr Dalton then moved the motion of refusal in line with Officer’s report and recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

Resolved

That application 18/08496/FUL be refused, as per the Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

The gate is of a metal barred design, along the lines of railings found on grand country estates, with slabs of timber fixed to it.  The timbers, while unique, make for a much more visible structure.  The sliding nature of the gate is wholly uncharacteristic for the thatched cottage, the visibly modern technology intruding into all public views of the property, while its location forward of the front elevation serves to emphasis its unusual nature.  The NPPF allows for the consideration of some harm to the setting of a listed building where public benefits have been identified that would outweigh that harm; in this situation, the gate provides no such benefits and so the test in para 196 of the NPPF is not met.  Further, it is considered that the works fail to preserve the setting of the listed building, contrary to policies CP57 & CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, section 66 of the Act, and fail to preserve the character of the Porton Conservation area, contrary to section 72.

In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this planning application has been processed in a proactive way.  However, due to technical objections or the proposal’s failure to comply with the development plan and/or the NPPF as a matter of principle, the local planning authority has had no alternative other than to refuse planning permission.

Resolved:

That application 18/08762/LBC be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The gate is of a metal barred design, along the lines of railings found on grand country estates, with slabs of timber fixed to it.  The timbers, while unique, make for a much more visible structure.  The sliding nature of the gate is wholly uncharacteristic for the thatched cottage, the visibly modern technology intruding into all public views of the property, while its location forward of the front elevation serves to emphasis its unusual nature.  The NPPF allows for the consideration of some harm to the setting of a listed building where public benefits have been identified that would outweigh that harm; in this situation, the gate provides no such benefits and so the test in para 196 of the NPPF is not met.  Further, it is considered that the works fail to preserve the setting of the listed building, contrary to contrary to policies CP57 & CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, section 66 of the Act, and fail to preserve the character of the Porton Conservation area, contrary to section 72.