Porch, wall and chimney changes at Carpenters Arms, Cosheston, Pembroke Dock

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for two chimney removals and an open porch, plus permission for a rear retaining wall.

“The application site is located to the north of Point Lane, Cosheston and consists of an irregularly shaped parcel of land, containing a two-storey detached dwelling, which is raised above the level of the adjoining highway.”

“The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the removal of two chimney stacks and the erection of an open porch on the front elevation of the dwelling. Also, the application seeks permission in respect of a retaining wall formed at the rear of the dwelling between the rear elevation and the raised garden behind.”

Officer report

The site

The site is an elevated, irregular parcel containing a detached two-storey dwelling, surrounded by residential development.

“The site is flanked to the north, east and west by residential development, with further residential properties to the south of Point Lane.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a rear extension, detached garage, changes to windows, doors, roof form and materials, and later garage alterations.

“22/0978/PA – Proposed replacement sub-standard utility room with first floor extension to rear and detached garage/workshop – Granted, 27 April 2023.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approving the porch and wall with conditions but refusing chimney removal because it harmed the conservation area’s character and appearance.

“It is recommended that in respect of the porch and retaining wall the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“The removal of the chimney stacks fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Cosheston Conservation Area, creating harm to visual amenity and failing to protect the historic environment. As such…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The community council had no objection, while two letters raised concerns about heritage, unauthorised changes, the wall, landscaping, environmental effects and other matters.

“Two letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:”

“- Impact of proposal on historic character and Conservation Area - Unauthorised changes - Site is the subject of an ongoing enforcement investigation - Inaccuracies in the submitted plans - Retaining walls and visual impact - Landscaping and environmental impacts - Installation of a subsurface structure - Determination of the application should be by Planning Committee…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant answered questions about the chimney’s condition, Building Control advice and the relocation of proposed solar panels.

The votes

Members approved the porch and wall unanimously apart from one abstention, then voted seven to three to approve chimney removal with two abstentions.

“The Chair then Moved that the retention of the porch and retaining wall be approved; Seconded by Councillor John Cole.”

“Councillor Nick Neumann then proposed that the removal of the Chimney Stack be Approved on the basis that the impact to the Conservation Area is minimal and is not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scheme. Councillor Neumann explained that the amount of time spent on the application was testament that Members had struggled with the application and that there was a…”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee approved the porch and retaining wall and was minded to approve chimney removal because the loss was not detrimental to the street scene’s heritage value.

“That the application in respect of the porch and retaining wall be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.”

Minutes

Why chimney removal was supported

The stated reason for supporting chimney removal was that its impact on the conservation area was minimal and not detrimental to the street scene’s heritage value.

“That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application as the loss of the chimney was not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scene.”

Minutes