Retention of replacement dwelling, less conservatory, front canopy, side porch and rear lean-to utility, cloakroom and rear entrance.

Retention of replacement dwelling, less conservatory, front canopy, side porch and rear lean-to utility, cloakroom and rear entrance.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Member, explained the reasons for the delay in the receipt of Fownhope Parish Council's comments.  It was noted that Fownhope Parish Council and Mordiford Parish Council had expressed concerns about certain elements of the development but acknowledged the need for compromise and for pragmatic solutions.

Councillor PJ Edwards asked a number of questions, including: whether, with the removal of the external elements identified, there would be a requirement to reinstate areas of hardstanding to its original earth/garden state; whether conditions could require the removal of the additional level of habitable area within the garage; and, given the scale of the unauthorised development, whether a suitable planning obligation could be secured.  The Central Team Leader responded by advising that: it was reasonable to expect a hard surface outside the backdoor to a dwelling but officers could review the external surface treatments as necessary; as an internal structure, the additional level in the garage could be used as long as it remained ancillary to the main dwelling; and the purpose of planning obligations was to mitigate the direct impact of new development and, therefore, obligations were not usually sought for replacement dwellings with a similar number of bedrooms to the original property.  Councillor Edwards felt that the significant increase in dimensions would result in more intensive use and, therefore, considered that a planning obligation to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure would be reasonable in this instance.  The Chairman noted that Fownhope Parish Council would support this suggestion.

Councillor GFM Dawe said that the site was in a tremendously sensitive location, being in a prominent position within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest, and considered that the building constructed was not comparable in size and scale with the original cottage, even with the removal of external elements.

Councillor ACR Chappell noted concerns about the retrospective nature of the application, the suggestion by Fownhope Parish Council that a planning obligation should be imposed, and did not consider the application to be acceptable without an appropriate contribution towards local facilities to moderate the impact of the unauthorised development.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes commented on the landscape considerations and said that the authority had to be consistent in its approach to planning obligations.

The Legal Practice Manager explained that the same criteria had to be applied to retrospective applications as for regular applications and no element of punitive action could be considered.  He also explained the risks that developers took when building unauthorised structures.

Councillor PA Andrews did not consider that this proposal had addressed the fundamental policy objections given as reasons for refusal in respect of the last application for the retention of the building and should be refused due to the mass, size and design of the property.

Councillor Edwards questioned whether the authority would be able to sustain refusal on appeal and suggested that delegation to officers, in consultation with the Local Member and the parish councils, might secure local benefits through an appropriate planning obligation.

The Central Team Leader explained the approach of officers to this application, including public interest considerations.  He also outlined the options available to the applicant.

A motion to approve the application failed and the resolution below was then agreed.

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 and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

Notwithstanding the proposed removal of the conservatory, front canopy, side porch and rear lean-to, the local planning authority consider that the resultant dwelling is not comparable in size and scale with the original cottage.  The development is therefore contrary to Policy H7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation 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 Central Team Leader advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation given the reasons put forward by members.]