Agenda and minutes

a) Under the Code of Conduct

b) Under the Planning Code

There were no declarations of interest.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The report of the Executive Manager - Communities.

The Committee considered the written report of the Executive Manager - Communities relating to the following applications, which had been circulated previously.

18/00750/FUL - Demolition of existing house and buildings, and erection of two new dwellings with existing access (revised scheme) - Midway House, Main Road, Upper Broughton, Nottinghamshire LE14 3BG

Updates

There were no updates reported.

In accordance with the Council’s Public Speaking Protocol for Planning Committee Mr Steve Lewis-Roberts of Pegasus Group, (agent for the applicant) and Mrs Rosemary Russell, (objector) addressed the meeting.

Comments

Members of the committee expressed concern that insufficient evidence had been provided by the applicant to justify the demolition of a non-designated heritage asset. Members of the committee were also of the opinion that the proposed design of the new dwellings was visually discordant with the surrounding area.

DECISION

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

1.     The proposal would result in the demolition of the former school and school masters house; these are considered to be non-designated heritage assets.  The application has not made a convincing case that these buildings are beyond economic re-use and as such insufficient justification has been provided to support the loss of these buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 11 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy, the NPPF and Policy HOU6 c) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan which seek to conserve heritage assets.

2.     The proposal would result in the replacement of one dwelling and the erection of an additional dwelling.  The replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the dwelling to be replaced and the second dwelling would represent an additional unit on the site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies EN20, HOU4 and HOU6 e) of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan and the NPPF which seek to restrict new dwellings in the countryside and that where replacement dwellings are sought there would be no increase in the number of units or in the size or impact of the original dwelling.

3.     The proposed dwellings, by reason of size, siting, design, massing and materials, would be visually discordant in this rural location, failing to enhance local characteristics and distinctiveness, and would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the site and surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy and the NPPF and policies GP2 d), HOU6 d) and g) and EN20 of the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan which seek to ensure high quality design is achieved, that replacement dwellings and development in the countryside is not visually harmful or represent disproportionate increases in the size or impact of the original dwelling.

Note to Applicant

Negotiations have not taken place during the consideration of the application but pre-application discussions were undertaken and have resulted in the submission of the revised application which is now deemed to be acceptable and could be recommended for approval. However, having considered carefully the proposals,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report of the Executive Manager – Communities.

The Executive Manager – Communities submitted a report advising of objections that had been received to the East Leake No.1 Tree Preservation Order 2018. Members of the committee considered the objections and RESOLVED that that the order be confirmed without modification.