Retrospective outbuilding at 8 Church Street, Great Dunmow

What was proposed

The applicant sought retrospective permission for an outbuilding with a flat roof, black timber weatherboarding and UPVC doors.

“The applicant seeks retrospective planning permission for the construction of an outbuilding in the grounds of a listed building.”

“The proposal is for retrospective permission for an outbuilding with a flat roof and externally finished with black timber weatherboarding and UPVC doors.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained a listed semi-detached cottage, stood in a conservation area and adjoined or lay near other listed buildings.

“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 17th 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. The dwelling has a garden, within which was an outbuilding.”

“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 (Church End) Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Earlier 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

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the design caused less than substantial heritage harm that public benefits could not outweigh.

“The proposal would not result in detrimental harm to the amenities enjoyed by residential dwellings, to parking, to flood risk or to ecology. The proposal would not be acceptable in terms of design and character as it causes ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the listed building itself, nearby listed buildings and the Conservation Area. This harm could not be outweighed by public benefits.”

“The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan, relevant legislation 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 such, the proposal is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The outbuilding’s design, roof, materials and prominent location failed to preserve listed buildings’ special interest and the conservation area’s character.

“The Conservation Officer reports that while the flat roof form of the outbuilding means that the outbuilding is of a subservient scale and the proposed black painted timber weatherboarding is a traditional external finish, there are other significant issues with the design of the proposal.”

“Additionally, while the outbuilding at 8 Church Street would be smaller in size and scale than the other outbuilding, it is noted that the outbuilding at 12 Church Street is traditional in design and roof forms (in particular its pitched roof), and has traditional external finishes (slate roof, timber fenestration).”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The town council, conservation officer, housing officer and an objector raised concerns about heritage, design, materials, vegetation, lighting and flooding.

“Great Dunmow Town Council objects to the application and provided the following comments: • Proposal is not in keeping with established streetscene and causes harm to designated heritage assets as a result. • The proposal in its form, scale and appearance is visually intrusive and inconsistent with the character of the area (including the heritage assets).”

“Place Services’ Conservation Officer reported concerns regarding the design, roof form, location and materials of the outbuilding, which they state are not traditional in design and would be unsympathetic to the Conservation Area and architectural interest of the listed buildings concerned.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed the Housing Department’s role, possible refusal or deferral, and their sympathy for the client’s situation while not supporting the application.

“The role of the Housing Department during this application. It was stated that the Housing Department had to comply with the law. • The possibility of either refusing or deferring the application with an “olive branch” approach. Members were generally sympathetic towards the client’s situation but said that they were not in a position to support the application.”

“Councillor Church proposed refusal of the application. He said that a new application should be invited. This was seconded by Councillor Pavitt.”

Minutes