The application proposed significant alterations to this grade 2 listed 16th century building with 17th and 18th century extensions. At the July meeting of CAG it was decided that there was a lack of clarity regarding NPPF (paragraph 189) policy and asked for further clarity and suggested that the applicant should contact the Charles Lamb Society for their information.
A photographic survey and colour coded plans were presented. The development is to the rear of the property.
Concerns had been expressed from LAMAS and the Enfield Society regarding the materials for the stable door and windows. LAMAS had also spoken of concerns about the removal of a chimney breast however, it was acknowledged that the chimney breast was a later addition. The Charles Lamb Society had been contacted and had no comments regarding proposal.
AGREED CAG objected to the proposals on the grounds that the fenestration is not supported but that CAG is happy for the application to be determined under delegated powers.
The application proposes changes including refurbishment works and removal of internal entrance lobby and new patio.
AGREED CAG objected to the application because it was difficult to determine what was proposed from the plans. The proposal lacked the clarity required (as a Grade 2 listed property) under NPPF 189.
Whilst they appreciated that refurbishment works were necessary, further details/ photos were requested including justification for the removal of the lobby and details relating to the materials to be used for patio area.
The application proposes significant changes to a converted industrial building that had been converted to a residential use (single dwelling) in 2000. A previous application for changes was granted with conditions in 2015 but not acted upon.
AGREED CAG objected to the application proposed as this was considered over development on a small site. Although the flank wall was not visible from Chase Side the proposed roof line was not in keeping with nearby buildings. The proposal would allow small gardens on River View to be overlooked.
This application proposes the change of use of the first floor to residential use and the creation of a second floor to provide residential units.
AGREED: CAG objected to the application because it would involve the building of an additional floor with a flat roof and would not enhance the conservation area. They suggested that a more traditional roof in keeping with adjacent buildings should be considered. (It was noted that this could follow a similar design to that for Bees Chemist in Fore Street).
For any future applications, CAG would like to see more details and plans showing the rear of the development.
The application proposal is for the subdivision of site and erection of a detached 2-storey single family dwelling house at side.
AGREED: CAG objected to the application. The proposed building was neither traditional or modern in appearance. The windows do not show the depth of reveal. The full height (to the bargeboard) glazing in the gable end would be an alien feature in the immediate area.
The 3D view photos showing proposals do not appear to be clear regarding the boundary line, and there was concern about the accuracy of the pictures shown and the possibility of a very narrow building. A more accurate site survey was needed. The development should be in keeping with neighbouring buildings.