Proposed new dwelling (retrospective).  Revised siting from approval DCCE2005/3180/F.

Proposed new dwelling (retrospective).  Revised siting from approval DCCE2005/3180/F.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of Lugwardine Parish Council, Mr. Porter spoke against the application and Mr. Smith spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Sub-Committee that the dwelling itself was unchanged from the approved scheme but the application block plan associated with application DCCE2005/3180/F was inaccurate, with the site narrower than was understood to be the case.  Therefore, the distance to the boundary to the east and west were less than agreed.  He outlined the enforcement investigation process and the advice given to the applicants.  It was noted that a condition would require the access to be completed prior to occupation and that land ownership was a civil matter for the applicants to resolve.  It was reported that a requirement for obscured glazing in the side elevation had not been complied with and would need to be addressed if the application was supported.

In response to questions about the enforcement process, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the building had been built in accordance with the approved plans, despite the siting errors, and the appropriate course of action was to invite this revised application.  He emphasised that the principal matter for consideration was the impact of the reduced distance from the dwelling to the neighbouring properties.

Councillor R.I. Matthews expressed a number of concerns about the application and enforcement process, the continued construction at the site months after the mistakes had been identified, and questioned why conditions had been omitted from the recommendation compared to the previously approved application.  He felt that this proposal could set a negative precedent and felt that the application should be refused.

The Development Control Manager reiterated that the house had been build in accordance with the approved scheme and the discrepancy related to distances between boundaries.  It was acknowledged that the building was closer to the adjacent property than had been expected and a judgement needed to be made on whether the impact remained within acceptable limits.  He commented that the omission of obscured glazing could be corrected and advised that, whilst the short-term use of an original access for supervised deliveries during construction was not uncommon, the long-term access arrangements would need to be resolved prior to occupation.  In response to comments that a stop notice should have been served, the Development Control Manager advised that a stop notice would be difficult to defend in this instance given that permission had been granted for the dwelling and, apart from the issues of siting and glazing, it had been built in accordance with that permission.  He reiterated that the key issue was the impact of the reduced distances and Officers felt that this was not significant enough to warrant refusal.

In response to Councillor Matthews’ question about conditions, the Senior Planning Officer  explained that some conditions had been combined and others matters, such as drainage, had been addressed and no longer needed to be included as conditions.

Councillor Matthews expressed concerns about access arrangements, drew attention to the comments of the Parish Council and maintained that the appearance and setting of the building was unacceptable.

Councillor P.J. Edwards questioned whether the assertion in paragraph 5.4k that the new dwelling was ‘in a half an acre site’ was correct and expressed concern that there may still be inaccuracies in the report.  He also questioned whether the slab levels of the building were correct and whether the removal of permitted development rights would prevent the garage from being used as habitable accommodation.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the information in paragraph 5.4 had been submitted by the applicant, that the slab levels and dimensions were considered satisfactory and a condition could be added regarding use of the garage.

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson felt that, due to the siting, the building had an overbearing impact on the adjacent properties and the application should be refused.  A number Members supported this view.

RESOLVED:

That   (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.   The development, by virtue of its design, siting and scale, represents a cramped and overbearing form of development which is detrimental to residential and visual amenities. The development is therefore contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S2, S7, DR1 and DR2. 

(ii)  If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services given the grounds for refusal put forward by the Sub-Committee.]