Canopy, walls and BBQ at The Old Watermill, Mill Lane, Brigstock

What was proposed

Permission was sought to regularise a freestanding canopy, brick walls and BBQ forming an outdoor seating and dining area.

“Full Planning permission is sought to regularise the outbuilding to the rear of The Old Watermill, which was erected without planning permission. Typically, such development would not require planning permission since this would fall within the definition of permitted development. However, due to the outbuilding being located within the curtilage of a listed building, planning permission is required.”

“The brick wall and barbeque are constructed of reclaimed red and blue bricks; although the wall is not yet finished since it has not been capped. The wall partially encloses the outbuilding and extends beyond the outbuilding to enclose part of the lawn area to the west. The wall is approximately 74cm high; the parts of the wall delineating the boundary of the site sit in front of timber fencing.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a Grade II listed former watermill in the Brigstock Conservation Area beside Harper’s Brook, within a predominantly residential area.

“The application site comprises The Old Watermill, situated on Mill Lane within the village of Brigstock village and within the Brigstock Conservation Area. The site is accessed directly from Mill Lane at its junction with Latham Street, both of which function as quiet residential lanes, albeit Brigstock Latham’s primary school lies nearby which is also accessed from Latham Street; the site and its surroundings form an integral part of the historic village core.”

“The Harper’s Brook runs immediately along the site’s western boundary; the course of the brook has been altered in the past since it would have originally run through the site to allow the operation of the watermill. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by a varied mix of dwelling types ranging from small, terraced cottages to larger detached houses, almost…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the development acceptable in design, heritage, residential amenity, highways, flooding, drainage and ecology terms, subject to conditions.

“Officers consider that the proposed interventions to the site would be minimal and would not be readily perceptible from the public realm. Aspects of the proposed design are at odds with the prevailing character of development across the site and the wider area, such as in terms of the materiality of the proposal alongside the form of the canopy itself; however, it is considered that these deviations from prevailing character of the site are relatively minor in nature…”

“The wider site straddles Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 and lies next to Harper’s Brook. Officers have also noted the third-party comments which raise concerns about potential flood impacts of the development subject of this application. In forming a view on this, it is noted that no Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken.”

Officer report

Who spoke to the committee

The ward councillor requested a site visit and deferral, while the agent said the proposal caused no harm and separate applications would address other breaches.

What members debated

Members were concerned about repeated retrospective applications and wanted planning breaches discouraged, while noting why different elements were being submitted separately.

“In summary members raised concerns about the number of applications relating to this site that were coming forward retrospectively which they considered was not acceptable and that the planning breaches should be discouraged.”

“It was appreciated that additional applications were coming forward and the reason for the different elements being split.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve was carried with eight votes in favour, one against and one abstention.

“The chair put the motion to the vote, there were eight votes in favour, one vote against and one abstention and the motion was declared carried.”

Minutes

The committee decision

Planning permission was approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.

“RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions contained within the report.”

Minutes