Agenda item

Report No: DEV/FH/17/023

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of DC/15/2282/HH

Householder Planning Application - (i) Single storey front extension (ii) Two Storey side and rear extension (iii) Single storey rear extension - revised scheme of -DC/15/2282/HH

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

A Member site visit was held on 3 April 2017.  No comments had been received from Newmarket Town Council and Officers were recommending that the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 31 of Report No DEV/FH/17/023.

The Planning Officer explained that in 2016 planning permission was granted under application DC/15/2282/HH.  However, whilst works had been largely completed, several elements had been found not to conform to what was granted permission.

Accordingly, the plans before Members had been amended as part of the retrospective application to better show what works had been completed. 

As part of his presentation the Case Officer advised that a first floor front elevation window had been omitted from the plans, however, this could be delegated to Officers to include if Members resolved to approve the application.

Councillor Ruth Bowman explained that whilst she was not happy with the noncompliance and subsequent retrospective application, she moved that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation (inclusive of the delegation in respect of the first floor window) and this was duly seconded by Councillor Simon Cole.

Upon being put to the vote and with 3 voting for the motion and 9 against, the Chairman declared the motion lost.

Councillor Brian Harvey raised a question with regard to building regulations.  Officers confirmed that a building regulations application had been submitted via an external company, however, Members were reminded that building regulations compliance was not a material planning consideration.

The Case Officer advised the Committee that a significant amount of the scheme before them would have been allowed under Permitted Development.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded Members that whilst the application was retrospective it, like any other, needed to be considered on its own merits.  She also advised the Committee that it was custom and practice to consider Permitted Development alongside an application in order to help inform an Officer recommendation.  

Councillor Stephen Edwards spoke against the application, he cited objections to the scheme in respect of:

·         Poor design being out of character in the street scene;

·         Impact on neighbours’ amenity (overlooking); and

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor David Bowman proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, for the reasons cited by Councillor Edwards and this was duly seconded by Councillor Edwards.

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that the ‘minded to’ process would be invoked in respect of this application should Members resolve to refuse, and Officers would produce a risk assessment for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

Councillor Cole requested that the following information be included in the risk assessment report; the scheme granted approval under DC/15/2282/HH, development allowed under Permitted Development and the scheme applied for retrospectively – to enable Members to clearly consider all elements in comparison with each other.

The Chairman then put the motion for refusal to the vote and with 9 voting for the motion, 2 against and with 1 abstention it was resolved that

Decision

Members were MINDED TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION due to concerns with:

·         Poor design being out of character in the street scene;

·         Impact on neighbours’ amenity (overlooking); and

·         Overdevelopment of the site.