The Planning Officer (SO) delivered his report.

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the Ward Councillor, Councillor Simon Feldman to address the committee.

Councillor Feldman explained that he had received seven objections and was speaking on behalf of these residents.  This was not of a benefit to the community as it appeared to be a wooden makeshift design and did not complement the area.  He stressed that in such a prominent location, the look and feel of a design were important and planning should adhere to promoting a high standard of design. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Feldman and invited the County Councillor, Tim Williams to address the committee.    

Councillor Williams stated that many residents were concerned by the visual appearance of the canopy and they felt that this was merely a means of extending the premises to accommodate even more people, which would add to the problems they were already experiencing, namely noise, inconsiderate parking and anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Williams suggested that this was not merely a canopy, but more of a room and posed the question, when does a canopy become a room requiring full planning permission?  

He went on to expand on the problems experienced by neighbours and suggested that if granted, a condition be added to restrict the hours the extension could be used. 

The design was poor, linking two disparate buildings with an ill-fitting, inappropriate, poor quality wooden structure.  He went on to cite various policies from the Core Strategy UD1 and SS1 and the Residential Design Guide, and how this extension did not comply with those policies.  He urged the committee to refuse the application. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Williams and asked the Development Management Manager to comment on whether the canopy was a room and the suggestion of restricting the hours of use. 

The Development Management Manager explained that these premises were a long established religious centre and there were no powers to retrospectively restrict hours or use.  With regards to the canopy, it was open at the rear, so it could not be described as a fully built extension. If it were fully enclosed it would almost certainly need to be upgraded to comply with Building Regulations, however Building Regulations were outside the scope of planning. 

            The committee then debated the application. 

·        The opinion was this was a canopy, not a room.

·        The use was not an issue.

·        Suggestion to consider a change of colour, as it might improve the appearance.

·        Important to consider residents’ views, although seven was not a large number of objectors. 

·        The poor design standards would be sufficient grounds to refuse. 

·        Even though these are not planning matters, there were concerns regarding fire and structural safety. These could, of course, be raised with building regulations colleagues.

The Chair thanked the committee for their comments and expressed his concern about the very poor appearance of the construction and that the design was inadequate.  He explained that he had been so concerned, that he and Councillor Johnson had visited the premises.  He noted that if approved, this was a permanent addition and posed the question, if this design was in brick, would it be acceptable?  He asserted that it would not and added that it did not respect either building that flanked it.   

In view of the fact that this failed to meet the required design standards detailed in a number of policies, he proposed a motion to refuse the application. 

The Chair moved that the application be refused as it failed to comply with Policy UD1 regarding delivering high quality design:  “New development should respect and enhance the character of the local area in which it is located.”

Additionally the NPPF 2021, paragraph 130: “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

a)      Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term, but over the lifetime of the development. 

b)     Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

c)      Are sympathetic to local character. 

The Chair added that he felt the development failed to meet the threshold, although he acknowledged that he did feel the principle of development was not in question.  Nor did he accept that the development would impinge on the neighbours’ amenity. 

The Chair moved that planning permission should be refused, as it is of poor design quality, out of character with its adjoining buildings and causes harm to the local character of the area.  It is therefore incompatible with Policy UD1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and NPPF 2021, Part 12, paragraph 130 a), b) and c).

RESOLVED –

that, planning permission be refused as the development is of poor design quality, out of character with its adjoining buildings and causes harm to the local character of the area.  It is therefore incompatible with Policy UD1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and NPPF 2021, Part 12, paragraph 130 a), b) and c).