Deferred Application: HARLING: Keepers Cottage: Retrospective aplpication for new siting of dwelling (new dwelling approved ref no 3PL/2005/1914/F): Application Reference 3PL/2007/0672/F (Agenda Item 9)
To consider the application deferred at the previous meeting for a site visit.
This item concerned a retrospective application for a change in siting of a dwelling at Keepers Cottage, Harling. The application had been considered at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 7 April 2008 where it had been deferred to enable a site visit to be carried out on 25 April 2008.
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the site visit had been arranged to enable Members to assess the implication of the changes made and their impact on the landscape and on the neighbouring dwelling.
The changes involved the re-orientation of the dwelling by approximately 15 degrees from its approved position, changes to dormers and other minor design/materials changes.
From an officer’s point of view the changes were not unduly detrimental to the landscape or the neighbouring property and therefore the application was recommended for approval.
Mr Horn spoke on behalf of relatives living in the neighbouring dwelling. He explained that his main concern was landscaping and its mitigating effect on possible overlooking/intrusion and the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding landscape. He wanted to ensure that a scheme was submitted and approved. If this was done and the mitigation aspect addressed he had no other comments to make.
Dr Kobylecki confirmed that a landscaping scheme had been submitted. He apologised to the Committee for the difficulties caused by the changes.
A Member was concerned that if this application were approved it would set a precedent that it was acceptable to flout the law. He suggested that the application should be refused. Although he did not propose that the house should be moved he thought that it could be refused on the changes to the dormers.
The Council’s Solicitor pointed out that in regard to retrospective applications there were no grounds for refusal simply because the works had been done without permission. The Committee had to consider if what had been done was acceptable in planning terms.
The Development Services Manager suggested that an alternative to refusal could be to agree that subject to amendments to the design of the dormers, authority be delegated to him to approve the application with conditions restricting permitted development for walling and the requirement for any landscaping scheme to be carried out in full.
Discussion followed on the changes to the dormers in particular. Opinion was split - some Members thought they were acceptable as built whilst others found them totally unacceptable.
A proposal was made to defer the application for further negotiation and it was
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow officers to negotiate modifications to the dormers. If following consultation with the Chairman the changes were acceptable, the Development Services Manager be given authority to approve the application subject to further conditions restricting permitted development rights for walling and landscaping. If the changes were unacceptable, the application would be brought back to Committee.
A request was made that the Parish Council be consulted on any proposed changes. It was confirmed that they had been consulted on the application as usual and would be notified of any proposed amendments.