Agenda item

Erection of a single storey side extension and a first floor rear extension together with the provision of two parking spaces and eight cycle parking spaces and the creation of a vehicular access to the site

By 6 votes to 3, with one abstention, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Planning Officer, Dominic Bush, presented the application. The Planning Officer provided clarity on the ridge heights and the red line boundary in response to Member questions. Further clarity was provided over the design process and the status of the layby- it was confirmed that the layby was part of the public highway.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Chris Hill of DPA Architects. Members asked no questions of clarity of the agent.

Councillor Sean Houlihane of Dry Drayton Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council and detailed the reasons for the Parish Council’s objections. Members asked questions of clarity over the design based objection, with Councillor Hourihane informing the Committee that the Parish Council’s view was that the application would be acceptable if it had a design that was more consistent with the existing structure and, despite the comments of the Conservation Officer, the modern design would not enhance the street scene of the area. In response to a question the highways issues and mitigation of these concerns through the proposed conditions, Councillor Hourihane stated that the visibility splays could provide some mitigation, but that the Parish Council still had concerns over how the splays would work with the layby being maintained, as well as concerns over the long term use of the school for parking provision and the safety of the access.

The Planning Officer clarified that the 2 metre visibility splays both sides of the access were deemed acceptable to mitigate road safety concerns and provided clarity over the acceptability of the design.

Councillor Richard Stobart gave his view as local Member and echoed the Parish Council’s concerns around road safety, parking provision and design. Councillor Stobart expressed a desire to see further strengthening of conditions to mitigate these concerns.

In the debate, the Committee discussed the responses from consultees, including those from the Conservation Officer and Highways Development Management. Some Members agreed with the Conservation Officer’s assertions that the proposal would not affect the character the adjacent listed building, whilst others felt that the proposal would give rise to harm to heritage assets. The Committee was satisfied with the conditions on highway safety that were implemented in response to the comments from the Highways Development Management. Concerns were raised about parking provision given that the church relied on the nearby school to provide parking, but the Committee noted that the arrangement between the church and the school was not a material consideration; Members also noted that the proposal would increase the parking provision directly provided by the church. Debate was held over the potential for the extension to increase the size of the congregation at the church and the impact this would have on parking provision. Opinion on design was split amongst the Committee, with some Members stating that they felt the design was appropriate and of high quality, whilst others felt it was not in keeping with the street scene surrounding the site, that it would harm the character of the area and that a design that was more sympathetic to the existing building would be more appropriate.

Councillor Henry Batchelor, seconded by Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins, proposed that the Committee move to a vote. Prior to the vote, the Committee agreed that, if it were minded to refuse the application, the reasons for refusal would be contradiction of paragraph 1 a) and d) of policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

By 6 votes (Councillors Peter Fane, Geoff Harvey, Henry Batchelor, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Mark Howell and Peter Sandford) to 3 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Bill Handley and Dr Richard Williams), with one abstention (Councillor Richard Stobart), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.