Meeting documents

Application proposal: Erection of three bedroom dwelling house - retrospective- resubmission of planning application 13/03703/FUL.

The Planning Officer presented the report on behalf of the case officer, as detailed in the agenda. He advised there were no updates to report and highlighted to members the approved plans and the detail of the dwelling as built. As the building had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, this was a retrospective application to regularise the site. The main issues for consideration were the impact on the conservation area and setting of a listed building from the omission of the chimney and use of incorrect roofing tiles. He summarised the comments of the Conservation Officer as detailed in the officer report.

Ms H Lazenby, agent, commented the reason the application was retrospective was due to a genuine misunderstanding between the architect and applicant. In her opinion the dwelling was set well back from the road and did not impact on the conservation area or listed building, and could see no justification or benefit to having the chimney which would not be seen from the road unless it was very tall. At the time of constructing the interpretation of likeness to neighbouring building was the tiles that have been used. The tiles had been in situ for two years and were weathering well. Examples of a tile which should have been used compared to the ones that had were held up and shown to members.

Ward member, Councillor David Norris, commented he understood why the Conservation Officer had taken his stance. He noted there were no objections from the community and on looking at the building the first thoughts were not that the tiles didn’t look or right or where’s the chimney? He did not consider the dwelling, as built, caused such demonstrable harm as to merit refusal.

Ward member, Councillor Pauline Clarke, concurred with her fellow ward member, and questioned what would be gained by replacing the roof and putting in a chimney.

During discussion varying opinions and comments were raised including:

·         Acknowledge it does fit plans but to potentially put in a plastic chimney was ludicrous and if installing a proper chimney would require major reconstruction.

·         Should be approved.

·         An approval would undermine the whole listed building planning system.

·         Don’t like retrospective applications

·         Don’t think the chimney is a major issue, and the tiles have been there several years and weathering – in a few years’ time when moss has grown, clay and concrete tiles would probably look very similar.

·         Difficult to comprehend how not built to plans and should be made to build to the plans.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead clarified that looking at the plans no fireplace had been installed. He acknowledged that he didn’t believe the potential of a plastic chimney had been given much consideration.

It was proposed to accept the officer recommendation to refuse the application, but on being put to the vote the proposal was lost, 4 favour of refusal and 6 against.

The Legal Services Manager advised members if members were minded to approve the application, they would have to be satisfied that there was no adverse impact i.e. it would in essence be a reversal of the officer recommendation to refuse, as detailed in the agenda report.

The Area Lead suggested recommended that there should be conditions for approved plans, obscure glazing as originally required and that Permitted Development Rights for extensions, garages and outbuildings be withdrawn

It was then proposed to approve the application, subject to the conditions as suggested by the Area Lead. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 6 in favour and 4 against.

Councillor Jo Roundell Greene requested that the minutes indicate she voted against the application.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)