Agenda item

Rose Of Bengal 42 Borough Street Castle Donington Derby DE74 2LB

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to members. 

Mr R Sizer, representing the Parish Council, addressed the committee.  He stated that the centre of Castle Donington was promoted by traders as a historic market town, and the Rose of Bengal was located in a conservation area.  He advised that the Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds that the renovations to the shop front did not accord with the Council’s guidance, which he made reference to.  He highlighted the importance of context, as shop fronts were never seen in isolation, and should respect the building it formed part of and the wider streetscene. He also advised that shop fronts were to be timber constructions, usually, but this was pvc. He also made reference to policy HE1 which stated that heritage assets should be enhanced or preserved.

Mr R Morrell, agent, addressed the committee.  He said that pre-application advice had been sought by himself with his client present, and they had been informed that there were no restrictions on the shops on Borough Street.  He added that he had dealt with many applications in conservation areas over the years.  He explained that one of the key points requested by his client was better access for the disabled, as there were changing floor levels inside the shop. He stated that under Building Regulations the design of windows must comply with zero carbon emissions and that this was achieved via large panel double glazing.   He also added that sound tests were also requested by building control as was a noise pollution audit, which also formed the requirement of the windows.  He advised that the plans were submitted to the local building control and all other alterations were successfully approved.  He stated that no consultation between building control and development control had ever taken place.  He reiterated that all requirements had been fulfilled and advice sought on the design of the shop front.

The motion to move the application in line with officer recommendation was put to members and was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor R Canny.

Councillor D Everitt stated that there must be documentation to verify the facts raised by the agent.  He added that what concerned him was the way in which the shop front projected forward and how the shop front looked considering the rest of the streetscene.  He also considered it amazing that one would undertake work in a conservation area without knowing the regulations and being liable.    He sought clarification on how long the shop front had been in existence.   

Councillor R Canny clarified that the forward projection was not original, but had been undertaken many years ago and was not part of this renovation. She stated that the property was previously a cake shop and that there had been no problems with disabled access.  She made reference to the Council’s policies and stated that the character that was there had been completely taken out.  She added that the Parish Council wanted to encourage people to consult with them and take on board the guidelines when they were replacing windows.  She felt that the Parish Council ought to be afforded some weight to enable them to take control of this historic village.  She added that the window could have been improved significantly by working with officers and taking on board the guidance.

Councillor D Harrison expressed concern that the applicant could receive a substantial penalty which could jeopardise their business when they believed they had followed the due process and were doing nothing wrong. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that he had spoken with colleagues and there was no building control requirement that resulted in the shop front needing to be replaced.  He added that building control would not check as a matter of course whether planning permission was required, and it was the applicant’s responsibility to do so.  He explained that there was no formal record of pre-application advice being given in this case, and he was certain that if it had been, the advice would have been that a planning application was needed.  He concluded therefore that the applicant had taken a risk and had completed the work without obtaining planning permission.  This had subsequently been investigated by the enforcement team, and assessed by officers.  It was considered by officers that, had the application been submitted before the works were carried out, some improvements could have been achieved, hence the recommendation.

Councillor V Richichi stated that the shop front was not in keeping with the locality and expressed concerns that this had been rushed through. 

Councillor D J Stevenson clarified that what was under discussion was only the window and the door, which was virtually the same as the one next door and the Co-operative store opposite.

Councillor M Specht felt removing the glass panes and inserting Georgian bars would not be too onerous a cost, and therefore he supported the officer’s recommendation.

The application was moved to the vote and it was

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.