Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the realignment of the existing stone wall to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian improvements to Bramham Road. Erection of two outbuildings. Replacement of an existing timber fence with a new stone boundary wall and gate pillars. Replacement of an existing single storey extension to Corner Cottage. Change of use of land to parking, with associated hardstanding/landscaping at Corner Cottage, 2 High Street, Clifford, Wetherby, LS23 6JF

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the  realignment of the existing stone wall to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian improvements to Bramham Road. Erection of two outbuildings. Replacement of an existing timber fence with a new stone boundary wall and gate pillars. Replacement of an existing single storey extension to Corner Cottage. Change of use of land to parking, with associated hardstanding/landscaping at Corner Cottage, 2 High Street, Clifford, Wetherby, LS23 6JF

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day. Slides and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Panel providing the following information:

·  This application was presented to the Panel at the request of Cllr Lamb, Wetherby Ward Member on the basis of the potential impact on the conservation area, the fact that the site is located at a key gateway to the village and the application had raised local concern.

·  The site is in the vicinity of a number of Grade II listed buildings and structures:

o  Nunnery House

o  Head’s House at Northways School

o  Clifford War Memorial

o  Baptismal Well

·  The site is within Key Short Range View B as identified in the Clifford Neighbourhood Plan.

·  The application was a revised resubmission of previously refused and withdrawn applications to realign the boundary wall, erection of two outbuildings, and single storey extension to Corner Cottage as considered under two previous applications. The applicant had provided further information and revisions required by officers, addressed outstanding concerns and these were set out at Paragraph 27 of the submitted report.

·  Access to the High Street was proposed to be pedestrianised with parking provision which had been approved in 2020 and forms part of the application site.

·  Hardstanding was proposed to be of crushed limestone finish with access to Bramham Road to be cobble sets. The wooden fencing was to be removed and replaced by a stone wall and set back 1 metre, with the depth of repositioning varying along its length. This would create a wider footpath, which would be offered for adoption under a Section 278 Agreement

·  Two outbuildings are proposed, one would serve as an ancillary structure for Corner Cottage, with a garage and the second would be a cycle store for the dwellings at Greyhound. Both outbuildings would be constructed of limestone facing walls, slate tiled roofs, timber doors and windows.

·  The proposed replacement of an existing single storey extension would be 7.6 metres in width with a depth of 5.6 metres. The proposal is for the extension to have a flat roof to a height of 3 metres. The proposals for materials are stonework to the walls, with single ply roof with sliding doors to the south elevation. The extension is to be used as a kitchen-diner.

·  The Panel were advised that the current stone walls would be dismantled and numbered so they could be reused. This would be conditioned to ensure that any new stone matched. It was noted that the applicant had worked with officers including the Conservation Officer.

A speaker in objection attended the meeting on behalf of Clifford Parish Council Clifford Local History Group and residents and provided the Panel with the following information:

It was the view that this application was of very little difference to previous applications. And he listed some of the similarities as:

·  The blocking off of vehicle access from the High Street would mean that 8 properties with potentially two vehicles each would be using the proposed new entrance off Bramham Road.

·  The historic boundary wall would be extended in height, but this should be built parallel to the rear of the boundary wall as required at a similar location on the High Street.

·  Setting the extension back is considered to be a positive move in terms of visual amenity.

The main concern was of the demolition of the historic boundary wall, as this was a key part of the character of the village. The alignment and position of the wall forms a key view into the village. The conservation area and appraisal management plan identified magnesium limestone boundary walls as a positive contribution to the conservation area and should be retained. A historic map shows the wall in position from 1846.

It was noted that a previous application which had been refused had been to appeal and at the appeal the Inspectors view was that the wall should be retained. In 2021 a Conservation Officers view was the section of wall in question was extremely important, the alignment of the wall to the pavement edge is therefore as important as the form of the wall. It was the view that the wider depth proposed for the pavement would be an anomaly in this location. It was the view of residents that the historic wall sits perfectly alongside the Grade II listed buildings of the Nunnery and Northways School.

It was the view of residents that nothing had significantly changed in relation to the application and the wider impact on the conservation area. It was thought that more weight should be given to the protection of the conservation area and the historical assets of the village.

The local community objected to the application as it was contrary to NPPF in its emphasis on taking all possible steps to protect conservation areas, with no public benefits to outweigh the harm to Clifford conservation area and the listed buildings. It was also contrary to Clifford Neighbourhood Plan regarding the retention of stone boundary walls and relevant planning policies.

Responding to questions from the Panel the speaker provided the following information:

·  The potential number of cars accessing on to Bramham Road were a concern. It was noted that there had been no recorded accidents in the area.

·  Members noted that residents supported the bringing back into use of Corner Cottage, but their main concerns were with the demolition of the wall.

·  It was acknowledged that the developer had sent advanced notification to Clifford Parish Council and the application had been looked at by the planning working group it was also put on the agenda with residents invited to the meetings for discussions. It was noted there had been no direct consultation with the developer.

·  There were concerns in relations to accessibility if cobble sets are used for wheelchair users and users of buggies and pushchairs.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Panel and provided the following information:

·  Since 2012 there had been one refusal and had gone to appeal, and subsequent applications which had been withdrawn and amended. There had been discussions at the appeal and these comments had been taken on board. This application has been redesigned with those comments taken into consideration.

·  The previous application had seen the wall set back more and did not include the garage or the cycle store, the wall between the driveways or the raised section of wall shielding the remodelled extension.

·  In discussions with the Conservation Officer, it was recognised that the insertion of the driveways and loss of trees in recent years has eroded the special character of the area.

·  It was the view that the enclosure of the garage, cycle store would enhance the area. 

·  A model had been provided to show how the site would look before and after and was the view that the alignments made little change to the area. The realignment would not result in the removal of a stone wall, just a slight repositioning of the stone wall. It was noted that the applicant had employed the services of Peter Isherwood an accredited stone mason who would ensure the use of existing materials and traditional methods.

·  In terms of highways this was said to be a key driver for the applicant for the safety of his tenants. There was to be no further dwellings so there would be no increase of vehicles but aims to improve existing access arrangements. Closing of the High Street Access and improving the visibility on to Bramham Road, it was the view this would be of significant public benefit. It was noted there would also be a wider footpath for pedestrians.

·  The Panel were advised that a full pack of the submission documents had been delivered to the Parish Council and surrounding neighbours with the invitation that the developer could be contacted directly to discuss further. It was noted that no comments had been received.

There were no questions from the Members to the speakers.

Questions to officers provided the following information:

·  It was noted that Highways Officers had considered the accessibility and the works proposed would be secured by way of a Section 278 Agreement. As part of this, officers would look at the cobble sets to ensure compliance with policies, but it was currently deemed from the view of Highways Officers that the impact of the cobble sets proposed was acceptable. However, the Accessibility Officer had not been consulted on the impact of the cobble sets and this would be taken forward.

·  Officers provided information on the parts of the Neighbourhood Plan which had been considered and included GS2 – Key Views, DEV2 which included design standards and stone boundary walls and BE2 Conservation Heritage Assets. It was the officers view that the application was compliant with the relevant Neighbourhood Plan policies.

Members comments included:

·  Frustration at the lack of consultation. It was the view that there was a good scheme but the lack of engagement with the community felt as if it was a scheme being done to the community, rather than with them, as they had not had the chance to provide their comments. It was the view that there were benefits to the scheme, but it was not clarified if those benefits outweighed the harm to the conservation area. It was the view that more engagement with the community should have been considered.

·  Members could see there were a lot of benefits for this scheme, it would be safer and tidier and ensure continued use of the building, and the materials are suitable to the location. There was concern raised in relation to the use of the cobble sets for the pavement and the pavement width.

·  Concern in relation to the movement of the historic wall.

·   In relation to highway improvements, there had been no reported accidents in the location and therefore it was de facto the case that there were no identified concerns regarding highway safety.

·  More engagement required between the developer and the residents.

·  Members suggested that the application be deferred for further consultation with the local community and Ward Councillors on issues of concern.

RESOLVED – To defer for further consultation with residents, Local Ward Councillors and Parish Council.