Kitchen alterations at 8 Church Street, Dunmow, Great Dunmow

What was proposed

The application sought listed building consent to remove an internal kitchen door and part of the drywall.

“PROPOSAL: Removal of internal kitchen door and part of drywall…”

“The applicant seeks listed building consent to remove the internal kitchen door and part of the drywall.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a Grade II listed semi-detached seventeenth-century timber-framed cottage within the Great Dunmow Conservation Area.

“The application site is located on Church Street in Great Dunmow. The application site is situated in the eastern part of Great Dunmow, just to the north of the Recreation Ground. The dwelling is a Grade II listed semi- detached 17 th century timber framed cottage. The dwelling has two floors and is externally finished with render. The dwelling is owned and tenanted by Uttlesford District Council.”

“In the locality, there are directly adjoining listed buildings, as well as other listed buildings nearby. The application site is also situated within the Great Dunmow Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Site history

There was no relevant site history and no pre-application discussion took place before the application was submitted.

“There is no site history relevant to this application.”

“No pre-application discussions were undertaken between the Applicant and the Council prior to the submission of the Application.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the limited information prevented full assessment, the works would cause harm, and there were no public benefits.

“The application has limited information regarding the proposal and its overall impact on the listed building. Due to this limited information, the Conservation Officer could not do a full assessment on the impact of the proposal and attributed less than substantial harm to the proposal. The proposal has no public benefits.”

“The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. The Officer concludes that the proposal does not comply and is not in accordance with these policies and guidance, as the public benefits cannot outweigh the harm to the heritage asset. As the proposal is not acceptable, the proposal is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Advice and responses

The Conservation Officer could not support the application, while the town council had made no comment and no statutory consultation was required.

“The Conservation Officer reports that the principle to change an internal door within a modern partition is acceptable. The Conservation Officer also reports, however, that the limited information submitted within the application is insufficient to allow full review and assessment of the proposed works.”

“The Conservation Officer reports that the application lacks detail about the existing building and the context of the proposed changes and therefore they would be unable to support this application. As such, the proposal in its current form would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. The character, appearance or significance of the Conservation Area would not be affected.”

Officer report

Public representations

The application was publicised through site notices, notification letters and the press, but no representations had been received.

“Site notice/s were displayed on site and 4 notification letters were sent to nearby properties. The application was advertised in the press. At the time of writing this report, no representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Head of Development Management and Enforcement presented the application and recommended refusal because insufficient detail had been provided.

Members’ discussion

Officers said a heritage audit of UDC housing stock would follow and that the tenant had received advice and been told to seek further professional advice.

“In response to questions and discussions from Members, officers: • Said that following this application a heritage audit of UDC housing stock would be undertaken. • Said that the tenant had been provided with advice by the Conservation Officer, Planning Registration Team and the Housing Team. She had been advised to seek her own further professional advice.”

Minutes

The vote

The Co-Chair proposed refusal, and Councillor Pavitt seconded the proposal.

“The Co-Chair proposed refusal of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Pavitt.”

Minutes