Removal on condition 5 restricting siting and use of marquee between April and October only on application 15/00755/FUL (change of use of existing grade II* listed house and grounds to wedding and events venue with formation of associated car park and construction of seasonal marquee).

Due to Cllr Sanders interest, Cllr Faragher took on the role of Chair for the duration of this item and Cllr Wiles was appointed Vice Chair for the duration of this item only.  Cllr Sanders left the room for this item. 

Mrs Sanders, the Applicant was present and addressed the committee in support of the application.

Mr Martindale, Principal Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas at Historic England, was present and addressed the committee with their serious concerns relating to the application. 

The scale and footprint (26m x 9m) of the marquee results in an unsuitable further intensification of the overall site.   Its siting being so close to the Grade II * listed building and immediately adjacent of the conservatory, cause severe harm to the setting.  Historic England did not support the original application finding the positioning of the Marquee to be harmful.  Mr Martindale reiterated their Consultee advice, in that the permanent sitting would exasperate the situation to a level which was severely harmful.  

The current application seeks removal of the condition 5. Historic England objects to removal of the condition and therefore the application should be  refused.

The Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing Heritage Assets and to find a viable use for their long term conservation which makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. Reference was made to NPPF 131, NPPF 132  and 134.

Mr Hay, drew attention to the applicant’s viability statement.  This was submitted as a non-independent statement and did not cover a detailed profile of costs, profit projection, break-even, or general issues affecting viability. 

The statement referred to the commercial need for smaller weddings more likely to be held in Winter months (November-March), but with no commercial evidence for a marquee.  A review of similar venues, indicates that winter weddings only account to a very small proportion of bookings. 

Without a submission of a full business case plan, it would be difficult to conclude that a viability case can be made for the removal of the condition.

Cllr Hossack, Ward Member was present and addressed the committee in support of the application, agreeing that the main concern was the preservation of Hutton Hall and the grounds.  The original application approved two years ago included a full business plan.  If the current application is not approved the viability will demise, the income will demise and the building will not be sustainable. To remove the marquee twice a year, will increase damage to the Grade II* building.

Phil Ruck, Chief Executive informed members of the committee that enforcement officers have been notified of three conditions being breached:-

1.    Wedding Ceremony & Funeral Wakes only.  50^th Birthday and Wedding Fayre have also been held, which are not stated under condition 3.

2.    Marquee only being erected between April-October.

3.    Hutton Hall’s website advertises the venue can hold 130 guests. The condition states 120.

After a full discussion, a motion was MOVED by Cllr Mynott and SECONDED by Cllr Newberry to REFUSE the application.

A vote was taken by a show of hands and the Members voted as follows:-

FOR:  Cllrs Bridge, Mynott, Newberry, Mrs Davies, Morrissey and Faragher (6)

AGAINST: Cllr Wiles (1)

ABSTAIN: Cllrs Ms Middlehurst, Reed, Ms Slade and Mrs Murphy (4)

The motion was CARRIED to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:-

The proposal would result in a permanent structure abutting a nationally important Grade II* listed building; the harm to the setting of the building would result in material detrimental impact on the significance of the Grade II* Listed Building and the Grade II Listed Walled Garden.  It would neither enhance or preserve the appearance of the Hutton Village Conservation Area. This harm would be material, but in the terms of Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it would be less than substantial. The public benefits of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm identified including making optimum viable use of the heritage assets, contrary to Chapter 12 of the NPPF, the NPPG and Policies C14 and C16 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan 2005.

(Cllr Ms Sanders declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of being related to the applicants, she therefore left the room and didn’t take part in the debate or vote).

 (Cllrs Faragher, Bridge, Ms Middlehurst, Mrs Murphy, Reed, Ms Slade, Wiles and Mrs Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of knowing the applicants).