Retrospective application for a replacement dwelling and detached garage as built (deviations from approved plans DCCE2007/1033/F).

Retrospective application for a replacement dwelling and detached garage as built (deviations from approved plans DCCE2007/1033/F).

The following updates were reported:

§       The comments of Fownhope Parish Council had been received and were summarised; the Parish Council supported the application but wished to register its disapproval of retrospective applications per se.

§       The comments of the Landscape Officer had been received and were outlined as follows:

'The retrospective application seeks to reintroduce many of the elements and additional features that where considered incongruous in the first application (DCCE2006/3853/F): a conservatory, porch ground floor canopy roof and additional fenestration. Furthermore, the garage, clearly identified in the first application as being overly large and of a character inappropriate to the location would appear to have been constructed in an elevated position, larger than permitted and of a domestic character; the very reason, it was not considered acceptable. The development as built would appear to have introduced a much increased area of hard standing, a retaining wall and steps and patio area, none of which would have been considered acceptable if introduced as part of the revised planning application (DCCE2007/1033/F).

It should not be forgotten that the application lies within the Wye Valley AONB, within a Special Wildlife Site, adjacent to Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland and an area of landscape character identified in the Herefordshire Landscape Character Assessment.'

§       The following officer comment was also reported:

'The application has sought to impose a previously unacceptable development onto a site, where the constraints and parameters were clearly explained to the developer, via a retrospective application and I would not support the application for the regularisation of this development.'

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Jolly spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity of the Local Ward Member, commented on the proximity of the parish boundaries and the different impacts that the development would from the perspective of each parish council.  The Chairman emphasised the need for consistency and objectivity.  It was noted that decisions could not be based on emotional outcomes and the authority had to uphold its own policies.  In view of these considerations, the Chairman supported the officers' recommendation of refusal.

Councillor DW Greenow supported the views of the Local Ward Member and commented that a developer should know the planning process and the potential risks of unauthorised development.  He also expressed concern that the development had been allowed to proceed for so long without intervention.

Referring to a comment made by the applicant's agent about an offer to remove some elements of the dwelling as built, Councillor PJ Edwards questioned whether the removal of some features would reduce the building volume percentage.  In response, the Central Team Leader advised that the proposition by the applicant's agent had not been provided to officers prior to the meeting and, therefore, the exact percentage reduction had not been calculated.  Councillor Edwards suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred for further discussions between officers and the applicant.

Councillor DB Wilcox reminded the Sub-Committee that the site was in open countryside and that there was a clear policy presumption against residential development, although development may exceptionally be permitted where a replacement dwelling was comparable in size and scale to the existing dwelling.  In view of the professional advice of officers, it was considered that the replacement was not comparable in size and scale to the original cottage and should be refused.  It was noted that approval of the application would be contrary to a number of authority's policies and, whilst acknowledging that each application had to be considered on its own merits, this could establish a precedent for other unsuitable developments in open countryside.  He commented that deferral of the application might not achieve the outcomes required and there were numerous options to be considered as part of any formal enforcement process.  It was suggested that officers should ensure that the Chairman/Local Ward Member be kept informed about the ongoing issues.

A number of members commented on the retrospective nature of the application, the sensitive landscape character of the surroundings, and the crucial policy issues involved.  Some members expressed concerns about the building control process and why the unauthorised development had not been identified sooner.  The Chairman re-iterated the importance of the policy considerations.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The replacement dwelling is not comparable in size and scale with the original cottage and the development is therefore contrary to Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained in the Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2.      The development, by virtue of its design, siting and scale, fails to respect the local distinctiveness architectural style result in an inappropriate form of development which is detrimental to the landscape character and visual amenities of the area which is within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The development is therefore contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S2, S7, DR1 and LA1.