Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Erection of a detached dwelling house with attached garage. Revised enlarged dwelling to that approved under ref. 13/00977/FUL including the addition of a conservatory, dormers/velux windows in loft room space and enclosing of entrance porch on land south of Rectory Lane. (Retrospective application).

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed an application for the erection of a detached dwelling house with attached garage. Revised enlarged dwelling to that approved under ref: 13/00977/FUL including the addition of a conservatory, dormers/velux windows in loft room space and enclosing of front entrance porch, (retrospective application) on land south of Rectory Lane, Hempsted.

She drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained an amendment to paragraph 6.14, additional representations, amended and additional conditions.

She advised that Condition 5 in the original report had been removed as the boundary wall was no longer required to be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling.

She noted that the principle of a detached dwelling on the site had been established by the Inspector’s decision relating to the appeal following the Committee’s refusal of application 13/00977/FUL. She advised that building without planning permission was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Melvin, as a Ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Steve Crichard, a local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr K. Varghese, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members discussed a number of issues including the following:-

·         Definition of a conservatory. They were advised that there was no formal planning definition.

·         Removal of Permitted Development Rights. Members were advised that Permitted Development Rights were effective once the dwelling was substantially completed, normally after occupation of the dwelling. Members were advised that the conservatory that had been constructed was slightly larger than what could have been built under  Permitted Development Rights if the approved dwelling had been constructed and occupied.

·         Paragraph 6.17 was corrected to refer to a height of 8.9 metres for the approved plans.

·         The ridge height of the building now exceeded that of dwellings in Chartwell Close.

·         Concern that the house as built was bigger in size, height and footprint than allowed at appeal.

·         Presence of Great Crested Newts on the site. Members were advised that the ecologist had found no evidence of Great Crested Newts on the site although residents had stated that they were in the area. He had stated that it would be important to ensure the provision of the hibernaculums and maintenance of the rough tussocky grass areas in the mitigation strategy.

·         Concerns about the overbearing impact on neighbouring dwellings thereby resulting in a loss of amenity and concerns about the impact on the Landscape Character Area.

The Chair moved that the application be approved subject to the conditions as amended and removal of Permitted Development Rights. The motion was not seconded.

Councillor Morgan moved that the application be refused as the building was overbearing and damaging to the amenity. The motion was seconded.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:-

The dwelling by virtue of its overall size, siting and height results in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in Chartwell Close and Foxleigh by virtue of its overbearing impact. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and  Policy SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Adoption Version 2017.

Councillor Morgan left the meeting at this point to attend a Civic duty.