Agenda item

Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

Minutes:

Harling: Retrospective application for new siting of dwelling (New dwelling approved Ref No 3PL/2005/1914/F): Reference 3PL/2007/0672/F: Applicant: Dr R Kobylecki

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented this deferred item which had previously been the subject of a Committee Site Visit.  Following discussion it had been deferred to allow officers to negotiate on the design of the dormer windows.

 

The applicant had had a meeting with his agent and architect and reached the conclusion that any changes to the dormers would be expensive and ineffective.  He provided a photograph of a similar dwelling in the area which had received approval.  He apologised for the inconvenience he had caused but said he was not in a position to make any changes.

 

A landscaping scheme had also been submitted.  This was not considered to reflect the parkland setting of the dwelling and was the subject of on-going negotiations.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being agreed.

 

Mr Horn, speaking as an objector, agreed with the officers.  He said that he did not think that changing the windows would affect the scale and setting of what he described as a very large cottage.  However, he felt that more effort needed to be put into the landscaping scheme to mitigate the effect of the house on its surroundings.

 

Mr Took, the agent, accepted that Members found dealing with retrospective applications very frustrating, but pointed out that the decision should be made on planning merits.  They needed to decide if they would have refused the design if the original application had shown the house as built.  He asked them to decide if it caused demonstrable harm, and also said that once the porch was added it would improve the appearance of the house.

 

A Member said he was really disappointed that the applicant was saying that because any changes would cost money he was not prepared to make them.  He felt that the Committee should not accept this.

 

The Council’s Solicitor told Members that although they felt strongly about this and frowned upon unauthorised work they were not looking at this matter on principle but at the intrinsic planning merits.

 

The Development Services Manager noted that the submitted amended drawing showed the windows in the dormers to be of four panes of glass, yet as built they had eight panes.  He suggested that if the Committee requested the windows to be changed to match the amended plan the appearance would be improved.  However, he reiterated that the addition of the porch and the introduction of some significant trees to the front of the property would make a great difference.

 

Another Member said he was not surprised at the applicant’s attitude.  He had said he would work with the Committee and yet he had failed to do so.  He proposed that the application should be refused on design grounds.

 

Members voted on the proposal 7 for and 8 against.

 

Members then voted on the officer’s recommendation of approval with the same result, 7 for and 8 against.

 

The Chairman then suggested a new proposal.

 

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to conditions requiring the dormer windows being changed to match the submitted amended drawing and a condition requiring the receipt of an acceptable landscaping scheme which had to be implemented in the next planting season (October 2008).

 

 

Supporting documents: