One custom-build dwelling at 108 High Street, March

“ERECT 1 X SELF-BUILD/CUSTOM BUILD DWELLING INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF SHED WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA”

“This may include, where applicable, obligations under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Environment Act 2021 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These place additional legal duties on the decision-maker and must be read alongside the planning legislation.”

“The planning application was recommended for refusal for the following reasons: “1. The application would result in development within the setting of a Grade II listed building, 108 High Street, and would result in less than substantial harm to this setting and the Conservation Area, by virtue of introducing built form into currently undeveloped open land forming the historic context to the listed building, separating the Listed Building from its historic curtilage,…”

“Matthew Leigh explained that this application has been returned to the committee because officers feel it has similarities to the previous application. He advised members that the application came before the committee on the 25 June for a new dwelling and it had two recommended reasons for refusal, one in relation to the impact on the Listed Building and one in relation to access issues and highway matters.”

“Matthew Leigh explained that the application is still recommended for refusal, however, members acceptance and consideration that there are no issues in relation to the access and the highway has fallen away from the officer’s recommendation due to the fact that they are minded of the resolution of the committee.”

“The Conservation Officer concluded that the proposed development would result in “less than substantial harm” to the significance of the designated heritage asset and its setting. The level of harm was categorised as “medium” within that spectrum.”

“Local Plan and the relevant provisions of Chapter 16 of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 213 and 215. Whether there is clear and convincing justification for the identified harm If Members accept that there would be less than substantial harm, the next step is to determine whether that harm is justified. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF confirms that any harm to a designated heritage asset must require clear and convincing justification.”

“The Legal Officer explained that it is important for members to consider the potential harm to the heritage asset of the Listed Building whilst bearing in mind their duty under the Section 62 legislation. She added that members need to consider whether in their view any potential harm to the Listed Building would amount to total loss, substantial harm to the building or its setting, less than substantial harm to the building or its setting or no harm at all.”

“Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows: • Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that there is no harm whatsoever to the Listed Building as the proposed dwelling is located a fair distance from the existing dwelling.”

“It was proposed by Councillor Sennitt Clough to refuse planning permission, however, that proposal was not supported by the committee and therefore failed.”

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.”

“Members do not support officers’ recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel the proposal will not detrimentally harm the setting of the Listed Building.”