SUMMARY REPORT

Application Ref: 20160712

Site Address: 23 - 25 King StreetGravesend

Application Description:

Alterations to third floor mansard roof previously permitted under reference number 20150553 but unimplemented to accommodate revised internal layout and construction of additional mansard roof at fourth floor level to provide 5 no. additional flats comprising 2 no. two bedroom self-contained flats and 3 no. one bedroom self-contained flats; installation of solar panels on south-east side of both levels of the mansard roof and installation of railings around first floor roof terrace at rear.

Applicant: Mr Ravi Shetra

Agent: Mr Martin Murphy, Green Portal (Management) LLP

Ward: Central

Parish: Non-Parish Area

Decision due date: 05 December 2016

Publicity expiry date: 2 September 2016

Decision level: Planning Regulatory Board - 30 November 2016

Reasons for referral: At the request of Cllr John Burden

Recommendation: Refusal

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation

The application site consists of a three storey building on the south side of King Street, Gravesend comprising public house at ground floor level (The Goose, formerly The Pembroke) and with the upper floors previously used as offices.

The proposal is for alterations to the third floor mansard roof previously permitted under reference number 20150553 but unimplemented to accommodate a revised internal layout and construction of additional mansard roof at fourth floor level to provide 5 no. additional flats comprising 2 no. two bedroom self-contained flats and 3 no. one bedroom self-contained flats; installation of solar panels on south-east side of both levels of the mansard roof and installation of railings around first floor roof terrace at rear.

The proposal is therefore effectively for a double mansard roof.

The proposals are not supported by the Council’s Conservation Architect or Design South East.

It is considered that the development would add a considerable volume of bulk and massing to the building and increase its prominence in the street scene. Due to its size it would be of far greater dominance than the single mansard roof which has been granted permission. It would be clearly visible from both views along King Street from both east and west as well as from longer distance views in surrounding streets and would be an overly dominant addition that would be out of keeping with the scale and character of the building and would have a negative effect on the appearance of the building and the street scene.

Refusal of permission is therefore recommended for reasons that the proposal by virtue of its size, form and design would appear an overly large, disproportionate and incompatible addition detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building, the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent grade II listed former County Court contrary to local and national planning policy.

MAIN REPORT

1. Site Description and Surroundings

The application site consists of a three storey building on the south side of King Street, Gravesend. The premises are in use as a public house at ground floor level (The Goose, formerly The Pembroke). The upper floors have previously been used as offices and with ground floor entrance at the eastern end of the frontage (Cooper House).

The ground floor is partly rendered with the upper floors in yellow stock brickwork. There is a pitched roof behind a deep parapet

The site is situated in the King Street Conservation Area and immediately adjacent to the grade II listed former County Court building (now The Grand).

The site adjoins a building of similar height (three storeys) and style on the east side with commercial uses on the ground floor (estate agents and retail) with residential above.

It is within the Gravesend Town Centre Opportunity Area (in the Local Plan Core Strategy), an area of archaeological potential, in a smoke control zone and in the Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Buffer Zone.

2. Planning History

Application No. Description Status Decision 20131133 Notification of the change of use of

the first and second floors from B1(a) office use to C3(a) residential use comprising 6 one bed flats and 2 two bedroom flats.

Prior Approval not required

04.02.2014

20150488 Remove brickwork to form

openings and installation of 2 no. windows to the rear of the building (1 on the 1st floor and one on the 2nd floor).

Permitted 29.07.2015

20150553 **REVISED DRAWINGS**Remove existing roof structure and replace with new mansard roof set back behind the existing parapet walls at roof level to provide a third floor level comprising 5 no. one and two bedroom flats on the third floor and installation of railings around roof terrace at rear.

Permitted 03.11.2015

20150982 Prior notification of the change of

use of the first and second floors from B1(a) office use to 10 flats (Use Class C3) comprising 8 two bed flats and 2 one bed flats.

Prior Approval not required

25.11.2015

19900154 Application for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing buildings in their entirety in connection with redevelopment of the site.

Permitted 28.08.1991

19900147 **AMENDED

APPLICATION/REVISED DESCRIPTION** Erection of a part two, part three storey building to form basement accommodation for the lift mechanism, a retail unit at ground floor with offices at 1st & 2nd floor; a plant room and a roof garden at first floor level at the rear.

Permitted 23.07.1991

20040320 Change of use of the ground floor

from shop to a public house and alterations to the shop front and installation of extraction equipment.

Application Refused 10.12.2004

3. Proposal

The proposal is for alterations to the third floor mansard roof previously permitted under reference number 20150553 but unimplemented to accommodate revised internal layout and construction of additional mansard roof at fourth floor level to provide 5 no. additional flats comprising 2 no. two bedroom self-contained flats and 3 no. one bedroom self-contained flats; installation of solar panels on south-east side of both levels of the mansard roof and installation of railings around first floor roof terrace at rear.

The submitted drawings and documents are as follows:

Application form; Covering letter and design and access statement; Drawing no. 1659.E.300 (Existing plans & elevations); Drawing no. 1659.P.300 Rev. B (Proposed third & fourth floor plans); Drawing no. 1659.P.301 Rev. B (Proposed elevations/section; third and fourth

floors); Drawing no. 1659.P.303 Rev. A (Proposed street views); and Report from agent (unreferenced) with concept drawing no. 1659.CO.103

(Proposed Elevations – Options 1, 2 & 3). 4. Development Plan and other Relevant Planning Policies and

Guidance

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan comprises the adopted Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014, saved policies from the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-2030 (July 2016).

Saved policies contained in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review should still be accorded significant weight, albeit that the weight accorded should be greater where policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraph 215).

The policies relevant to the consideration of this application are set out below.

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy September 2014:

CS01 - Sustainable Development CS02 - Scale and Distribution of Development CS11 - Transport CS12 - Green Infrastructure CS14 - Housing Type and Size CS15 - Housing Density CS18 - Climate Change CS19 - Design & Development Principles CS20 - Heritage and the Historic Environment

Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994:

P3 - Vehicle Parking Standards TC2 - Listed Buildings TC3 - Development Affecting Conservations Areas

Other Relevant Guidance

National Planning Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy has been found to be sound and consistent with the NPPF. The weight to be given to the saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plans will depend on their consistency with the NPPF. Planning Practice Guidance supports and clarifies areas in the NPPF.

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) which means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Paragraphs 126 -141, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment sets out national policy approach in relation to conservation of heritage assets with weight accorded this varying in accordance with their assessed significance. The contribution that the setting of a heritage asset makes towards its significance is an important material consideration.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

The Council has adopted a number of Supplementary Planning Guidance documents, Development Briefs and Conservation Area Appraisals. These elaborate on saved policies in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review and policies in the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy and are material considerations in determining planning applications.

The following documents are relevant to the consideration of this application: Residential Layout Guidelines (July 1996) SPG 4: Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006) The Kent Design Guide King Street Conservation Area Appraisal Management Plan – Gravesend Town Centre Conservation Areas Housing Standards Policy Statement

5. Consultations, Publicity and Representations Consultations

GBC Conservation Architect

The previous application for a mansard roof was of concern due to its impact on the adjacent listed building and the conservation area, and the harm caused by its scale and appearance when viewed from the west of King Street in particular.

This proposal to increase to height of the mansard roof with an additional floor is out of character with the conservation area and of a scale that will cause harm to the

conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed building – 26 King Street, the old county court.

I am therefore unable to support this proposal.

Design South East

When we saw this proposal at the pre-application stage our comments were:"A second mansard sought here will have a serious deleterious effect on the local townscape, the setting for the single storey adjacent listed building and on longer distance views along surrounding streets in the Conservation Area. It should be refused on these grounds, but we also noted the size of the flats is small, and there will inevitably be late night noise disturbance of residents from the pub itself."

The scheme has now come in as a planning application, and all of the above continues to be our view, no changes have been made to meet these points.

We also suggest that if a double mansard roof is permitted here, in a Conservation Area and as part of the setting to an adjoining single storey listed building, it would risk setting a precedent for allowing other harmful schemes elsewhere in Gravesend's extensive Conservation Areas.

We compared the flat sizes to National Standards: some are significantly undersized, and are therefore unlikely to offer sustainable homes, and an undersized three bedroom flat here would not provide a suitable family environment.

GBC - Head of Regulatory Services

No comment received.

GBC Engineering Services

No objections were raised to the scheme permitted in 2015 to provide an additional five flats within this building. This further proposal adds a further five to that permitted, bringing the total to 20 on site. Although no allocated parking can be provided on site, the premises are located in the town centre with good access to public transport and public parking. Hence, no highway objections are raised in this case.

GBC - Private Housing

No comment received.

Publicity

The application was advertised by way of letters being sent to 41 neighbouring properties and a site notice and press notice. The overall expiry date for comments on the re-consultation was 2 September 2016; no comments have been received.

6. Planning Analysis and Interim Development Manager Comments

An application (ref. 20150982) was submitted in 2015 for ‘Prior notification of the change of use of the first and second floors from B1(a) office use to 10 flats (Use Class C3) comprising 8 two bed flats and 2 one bed flats’. It was determined by way of Prior Approval not being required. Planning permission was granted in November 2015 (ref. 20150553) to remove the existing roof structure and replace with a new mansard roof set back behind the existing parapet walls at roof level to provide a third floor level comprising 5 no. one and two bedroom flats on the third floor and installation of railings around roof terrace at rear.

The applicant submitted a pre-application enquiry for a double mansard roof earlier this year. The view of the Council was that a double mansard roof would not be acceptable due to the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed building. The applicant has, however, chosen to submit an application for a double mansard roof extension in a slightly amended design. This does not resolve, however, the in principle objection to a double mansard roof extension.

The proposal is to erect an additional mansard roof at fourth floor level to create a double mansard roof to form five additional flats with solar panels on the south east side of both levels of the mansard and installation of railings around the rear terrace.

The single level mansard permitted under application reference 20150553 has not been implemented. The design of the third floor level of the mansard in the current proposal for an additional fourth floor level does not accord with the permitted scheme; the angle of the pitch of the roof has increased. Therefore, the proposed fourth floor level could therefore not be constructed above the permitted third floor level. The current proposal is therefore effectively for a double mansard roof.

The principal issues to consider in the determination of this application are whether the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and the adjacent listed building, safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents and future occupiers and safeguard parking/highway safety.

Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the adjacent listed building

The building is located in the King Street Conservation Area and adjacent to a grade II listed building, the former County Court. In assessing the effect of the proposal the Council therefore has a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss requires clear and convincing justification. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also advises that any harm which is less than substantial, must be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal.

The significance of the King Street Conservation Area lies in the evolution of streets and buildings that reflect much of the 18th and 19th century commercial expansion of Gravesend. It is focused on the central east-west highway of New Road, King Street and Milton Road. The character and appearance of the area is informed by streets lined with commercial buildings, most of them with ground floor shops and accommodation above, interspersed with civic buildings and some residential houses. King Street itself is a broad shopping street with two, three and four storey

buildings on either side in continuous rows. The mix of 19th and 20th century buildings have a range of styles and heights but retain a solid frontage that presents a firm enclosure to this wide busy shopping street. The King Street Conservation Area Appraisal indicates that no. 23-25 makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Area.

No. 23-25 King Street is a three storey building with a formal rectangular front elevation including a horizontal parapet concealing the roof. It is a prominent, well-proportioned building which is modern but it is clear that it was designed to ensure that its height at three storeys and architectural detailing were in keeping with the existing older buildings to the east. Within King Street there are a variety of older and modern buildings that vary in height. The Council’s Conservation Architect and Design South East both object to the proposal.

The agent was advised of the comments from the Conservation Architect and Design South East. The agent has submitted a written statement in response with some revised plans. The revised plans relate to changes to the internal layout and not to the design of the mansard roof which remains as submitted. In the report the agent describes the character of the Conservation Area and that it is laid out in a high density, has a distinctive roofscape and a range of architectural detailing and that the proposal must be considered in this wider context. The agent advises that following the pre-application advice given the applicant did look at alternative designs for the mansard. The design submitted, however, was considered to be the one that best resolved the concerns raised.

The agent states that the mansard has been designed carefully and its impact on the Conservation Area will be minimal and therefore neutral and not harmful. They argue that there would also be no impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building given that views from the street are oblique and the listed building is currently framed by two existing buildings of which the flank walls will not change. Furthermore, the agent states that the proposal is a modest increase over the single level mansard roof that has been granted permission and as the walls of the mansard would slope away from the listed building, it cannot be considered overbearing, overly bulky or dominant on the setting of the listed building. They believe the dormer would be a welcome and positive addition to the streetscene and would provide much needed accommodation within the town.

By reason of siting, the proposal would form part of the street scene along King Street. Within the Conservation Area, the streets are lined with buildings of a range of ages, heights and designs. There is no one uniform roof type in the Conservation Area but the predominant type is of roofs set back behind parapets. When considering the application for the single mansard roof it was considered that on balance it would not cause any significant material harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the adjacent listed building. It is considered, however, that a double mansard roof would not be acceptable.

The proposal, when combined with the development that would take place under the prior notification application in terms of ten flats at the first and second floor levels would take the whole structure to five full storeys and house twenty flats in all in the building.

The proposed extension would add a considerable volume of bulk and massing to the building and increase its prominence in the street scene. Due to its size it would be of far greater dominance than the single mansard roof which has been granted permission. It would be clearly visible from both views along King Street from both

east and west as well as from longer distance views in surrounding streets. It would be an overly dominant addition that would be out of keeping with the scale and character of the building and have a negative effect on the appearance of the building and the street scene. It would therefore harm rather than preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and distract from the setting of the listed former County Court.

A mansard roof is noted at no. 1A-1B New Road, Gravesend (Primark) which is further to the west. This is a five storey building that has a single level mansard roof; it is situated in the High Street & Queen Street Conservation Area; the Conservation Area Appraisal identifies it as a negative building. For ease of reference the building is shown below:

Existing single level mansard roof at no. 1A-1B New Road

The single level mansard roof on the Primark building is 4.2m in height. The proposed mansard roof at no. 23-25 King Street would result in an overall height of 5.1m. When one looks at the mansard roof at no. 1A-1B New Road it is considered that it appears as a dominant addition that does nothing to enhance the street scene or the Conservation Area it is situated within. This is reflected by the fact the building is designated as a negative building in the Conservation Area. Notwithstanding that the mansard at no. 1A-1B has an eaves overhang and the proposal would not, the double mansard roof proposed would be another 900mm greater in height than the mansard roof at no. 1A-1B New Road. It would therefore be of even greater dominance and would not be acceptable. Furthermore, the mansard roof would have dormer windows at both levels on all elevations and solar panels on the eastern elevation. This would all only serve to add to the dominance and clutter of the proposal.

The following image shows the existing view of no. 23-25 King Street in the street scene:

The following image shows the single level mansard roof extension that was permitted under application reference number 20150553, superimposed on the existing street scene view:

The following images show the current proposal for a double mansard roof, superimposed on existing street scene views:

The proposals would be contrary to the NPPF which requires that great weight should be given to conserving the significance of designated heritage assets. It is acknowledged that the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed building, as defined in the NPPF, and so this harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. These include providing additional housing but, given that fifteen flats could be provided at the site in terms of the Prior Notification application

for conversion of the first and second floors and the planning permission for the single level mansard roof, there would still be a noteworthy contribution to the Borough’s housing supply if this current proposal was not granted consent due to the harm identified. The fact the proposal would result in a provision of an additional five flats is therefore given little weight.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS19 and CS20 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy, September 2014 and saved policies TC2 and TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review, 1994 which only permit development which would preserve the setting of a listed building; preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area; be of high quality design and make a positive contribution to the street scene.

Amenity of future occupiers

The site is situated in the town centre and surrounded by buildings in commercial use. There may be some flats on the upper floors of some of the premises opposite but due to the width of the street the proposal would not cause any material harm to amenity.

In terms of the amenity of future occupiers, the flat sizes are all as follows. It should be noted that the flats have been amended slightly in the revised plans as the agent was responding to the comments raised by Design South East. The potential number of bed spaces has been reduced and details of furniture layout are included.

• Flat 16 (2 bedroom/3 person flat) – 40.7 sq. m• Flat 17 (1B/1P) – 33.1 sq. m• Flat 18 (1B/1P) – 33.6 sq. m• Flat 19 (2B/3P) – 53.4 sq. m• Flat 20 (1B/2P) – 43.8 sq. m

Flat nos. 16 and 19 have two bedrooms with three person occupancy. The National Space Standards state that the minimum internal floor area should be 61 sq. m. Flat nos. 16 and 19 are undersized, therefore.

Flat no. 20 has one bedroom with two person occupancy. The National Space Standards state that the minimum internal floor area should be 50 sq. m. Flat no. 20 is undersized, therefore.

Flat nos. 17 and 18 have one bedroom with one person occupancy. The National Space Standards state that the minimum internal floor area should be 39 sq. m. Flat nos. 17 and 18 are undersized, therefore.

As such, all of the flats are undersized according to the National Space Standards. However, this was also the case with the flats granted planning permission in the single storey mansard roof under application reference number 20150553. They too did not meet the National Space Standards. On balance, it was considered that the undersized flats could be accepted as the ten flats that were to be formed under permitted development on the first and second floors (application reference 20150982) also did not meet the standards. The Council has no control over flat sizes if a development is permitted development. The flats at third floor level required permission due to the fact they would be formed in the new mansard roof. The size of the flats could therefore be assessed but it was considered that on balance given that the applicant could construct undersized flats at the first and second floor levels of the building without requiring planning permission, it was

considered that a refusal on undersized flats at third floor level alone would not stand up at appeal. As such, it is unfortunate that a further five undersized flats are proposed but given the above, no objections are raised.

The flats in the additional level of the mansard would be a new fourth floor level above a building that has a public house at ground floor level. The first and second floors of the building are also to be converted to flats under permitted development. When the necessary Prior Notification application was dealt with (ref. 20150982) there was no requirement for a noise assessment and any required mitigation. The view taken with the application for the single mansard roof to form a new third floor level was also that given that the new level would be at an even greater height from the ground floor use than the first and second floors where the noise will be worse, it would not be possible to insist on any noise assessment or mitigation.

There is an existing flat roof section at the rear of the building at first floor level. This is proposed to be used as a roof terrace as part of the first and second floors being converted to flats under permitted development. The applicant is proposing to install railings around the outside of the terrace and they require planning permission as they are development. As the conversion of the first and second floors is permitted development, the Local Planning Authority has no control over the rear flat roof section being used as a roof terrace. Therefore, any issues of overlooking can also not be considered. The LPA does have control over the proposed erection of the railings proposed around the roof terrace as the railings do require planning permission in themselves as they are development but they are reasonable in terms of design.

Parking

There is no off-street parking provision at the premises and none proposed as part of this application. GBC Engineering Services raise no objections to the proposed development, this being that the building is located in the town centre with good access to public transport and public parking.

Ecology and Biodiversity

The application site is located in the Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Buffer Zone. The Ramsar site is of international biodiversity importance, particularly for birds. Recent evidence suggests that there has been a decline in bird populations in the internationally significant Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites that make up the North Kent Marshes. There is currently insufficient evidence to adequately assess the cause of this decline although interim findings indicate that recreational activity causes disturbance to birds and that more development will lead to an increase in disturbance. In the meantime, a precautionary approach to development will be applied. It will be imperative that developers address and mitigate any detrimental impacts on biodiversity.

In this instance, the proposed development would result in the creation of ten additional residential properties and as such, additional recreational activity would result. Therefore it is considered that there would be an adverse impact to the Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Buffer Zone, which should be mitigated in line with Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS12. In such cases the Borough Council has adopted a tariff that is payable for each new dwelling within 6km of the SPA/Ramsar site.

It is considered that the imposition of a planning condition on any planning permission granted could secure the payment of the approved tariff (£223.58 per new dwelling unit). A link to the Council’s website where there is justification for the tariff is shown below.

http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/home/planning-and-building/nature-conservation-and-landscape/thames-estuary-and-marshes

Housing Need

Policy CS02 sets out the Borough’s objectively assessed need for housing over the Plan period (up to the year 2028) and finds that there is a need for over 6,000 new dwellings in that time. Whilst the Council is currently able to demonstrate a five year housing supply the proposed development for a net increase of 5no. dwellings would offer a modest contribution towards meeting this local need and, accordingly, weighs in support of the application.

The agent states in their covering letter/design and statement that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply and references the NPPF which states that if a Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites, its policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. This is incorrect as stated above, the Council currently does have a 5 year housing land supply. The Council’s housing policies are therefore up to date.

Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para. 49 of the NPPF). However, the NPPF is clear that this is unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (para. 14 of the NPPF) and that this includes those policies relating to designated heritage assets (footnote no. 9 of the NPPF). It has been identified that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent former County Court, both of which are designated heritage assets.

7. Conclusion

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised it is concluded that, notwithstanding that the proposal would cause no material harm to the amenity of future occupiers, is acceptable in terms of parking and would provide a modest contribution to local housing supply in the town centre, as a result of the harm that would be caused to the King Street Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed former County Court, the application should be refused.

Recommendation:

Refusal

On the following ground:

The proposal by virtue of its size, form and design would appear an overly large, disproportionate and incompatible addition detrimental to the character and appearance of the host building, the character and appearance of the King Street Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent grade II listed former County

Court. As such, this proposal is contrary to Policies CS19 (Development and Design Principles) and CS20 (Heritage and the Historic Environment) of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy Adoption Version (September 2014), Policies TC2 and TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (Adopted Version) 1994 and sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which all seek to ensure a high quality design which respects local distinctiveness and conserves heritage assets.

INFORMATIVES

1. DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS For the avoidance of doubt the decision to refuse this application was taken in relation to the following plans and documents:

Application form; Covering letter and design and access statement; Drawing no. 1659.E.300 (Existing plans & elevations); Drawing no. 1659.P.300 Rev. B (Proposed third & fourth floor plans); Drawing no. 1659.P.301 Rev. B (Proposed elevations/section; third and fourth

floors); Drawing no. 1659.P.303 Rev. A (Proposed street views); and Report from agent (unreferenced) with concept drawing no. 1659.CO.103

(Proposed Elevations – Options 1, 2 & 3).

2. STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE APPROACH TO DECISION-TAKING

In accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015, and paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Authority has approached the assessment and determination of this application in a positive and proactive manner and, where appropriate, has worked with the applicant to secure a development that is sustainable and that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area, and that is in accordance with the Development Plan for the area.

In this instance the application is not in accordance with the Development Plan for the area and cannot be supported.

The Local Planning Authority provided pre-application advice on the proposal and advised that a double mansard roof would not be acceptable. The applicant has, however, chosen to submit an application, albeit in a slightly amended design. This does not resolve, however, the in principle objection to a double mansard roof extension.