Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: Two storey extension and alterations.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which stated that the penultimate paragraph on page 21 of the committee agenda pack regarding the level of harm to the listed building was corrected as follows:

“In summary, it is considered that the proposals will not result in any harm to the significance of the setting and historic interest of the listed building and surrounding listed properties, in accordance with the New Alresford Design Statement Section 4, Section 16 para 199 of the NPPF, S.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy CP20 of WDLPP1 and DM29 of WDLPP2 and the historic environment section of the Planning Practice Guidance. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in line with relevant legislation and local plan policy.”

During public participation, Alicia Salter spoke in objection to the application, and Simon Goddard spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.

Proposal Description: Item 7: Two storey extension and alterations

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full an additional condition 6. 

During public participation, Alicia Salter spoke in objection to the application and Simon Goddard (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Power spoke in objection to the application as a Ward Member and answered Members’ questions thereon.

In summary, Councillor Power explained her concerns regarding the proposed location of the extension and referred to the plan which she considered created a void from the inside of the chimney stack to be two storey’s deep and to the right of it there would be a long void. She made reference to the maintenance requirements of listed buildings and stated that the extension would create a problem and render the building partially unmaintainable. This concern was also reflected in the comments made by Historic Environment and also on an alternative planning application that had previously been submitted. In conclusion, Councillor Power considered that neither this proposal nor the previous application submitted were suitable in their current form.  

For clarification, the Public Law Manager advised the committee that the ownership of the wall was not a planning consideration and would need to be resolved as a separate matter.  

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

            RESOLVED:

                        The committee agreed to defer determination of the application        to a future meeting of the committee in order to allow for a site visit to     view the proposal in the context of its setting and to fully understand its impact on the neighbouring property at 42, Broad Street.

            The Committee were reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s         Constitution, previous speakers would have the right to restate their            comments when this application came back to committee for          consideration.