1)
Refused/No pre-app or discussion
To assist applicants in finding solutions to problems arising in relation to their development proposals the Local Planning Authority has produced planning policies, and provided written guidance, all of which are available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered.
In this case the proposal does not comply with guidance and policies. No pre-application discussions were entered into, but the Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants through the advice service to assist in the preparation of any new planning application.
2)
Unique text
Condition 3 (a) - Submission of details
Condition 3 (a) Sample of the proposed roof tiles -
The applicant has applied to discharge Condition 3(a) only. The submitted dark grey natural slate tile is acceptable and can be discharged.
Condition 4 - Works to match - Sample panels required
Not acceptable
The property was visited by the planning officer on the 8th May to view the sample panels on site.
The applicant had built two brick panels one with yellow stock brick and the other panel with darker coloured bricks.
The darker brick types within the sample panel to be used along the outer face of the historic wall appeared appropriate in terms of colour and texture . However, the pointing was too thick. Also the pointing of the panel was wrong with stretcher bond used. The pattern of bonding did not match the pattern within the property's historic wall.
The yellow stock brick panel had weather struck pointing, which is incorrect as it should be either flush or recessed. The pointing was also too think. Finally the pointing had different colours throughout the sample form very pale to dark. The pointing should have been darker in colour and consistent thought the sample panel.
The applicant provided photographs by email of a rebuilt sample panel, of the darker brick sample, on the 14 May. The bricks used in the panel were now red in colour which did not match the historic wall. The pointing also appeared too thick. This sample was not acceptable.
Further photographs of sample panels were sent by email by the applicant on 15 May. These samples again were incorrect. The colour of the samples did not reflect the host building or historic wall with colours of the brick panels appearing to have been striped from their natural colour creating a grey complexion. Again these sample panels are not acceptable.