Agenda and draft minutes

Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting.

None advised.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 8 March 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the Daventry Local Area Planning Committee of 8^th March 2023 be approved and signed as a correct record.

To receive communications from the Chair.

There were no announcements.

Consideration was given to the report detailing the planning applications which had been previously circulated.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the variations set out below, the advice set out in the report now submitted be agreed.

WND/2022/0766 EAST HADDON – Revised design of the dwelling following breach of planning of DA/2015/0459, NMA/2016/0060 and subsequent appeal APP/W2845/C/21/3280574 - Plot 2 Tythe Farm, Holdenby Road

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application for alterations to the built form of a dwelling following a breach of conditions in relation to application DA/2015/0459, a non-material amendment and the dismissal of an appeal against enforcement.

Members’ attention was drawn to the list of late representations and the proposed change of condition 2. The condition as currently drafted did not reflect the timing as approved on both appeal decisions, which only gave a 12 month compliance period. In the circumstances it was considered that 12 months seemed more than appropriate to rectify the breach of control.  This being consistent with the advice provided by the Council’s Enforcement Team.

Members were shown a site plan and the drawings of the building identifying the remediation work. The latest plan showed no alteration to the length of the dwelling as this was in accordance with the approved plans. The depth of the building was proposed to remain as built, i.e., 300 mm wider than the approved plans, however, the first floor over the kitchen/dining room area was proposed to be demolished in line with the appearance of the approved plan. The first floor element had been built without permission. The height of the roof was being brought down to what had been agreed previously, 8.3 metres and 5.9 metres respectively and the rear dormers would be removed. The Committee were shown photographs of the building that had been built.

Further to enquiries, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that 2 of the dormer windows would be changed to Velux windows and that if Members were minded to approve the application, the works would need to be completed within 12 months.

Derren Wilson spoke in favour of the application and highlighted that the owner was seeking to regularise the position. This plot was the smallest on the site.

Councillor Cecile Irving-Swift proposed that the application be approved, this was seconded by Councillor Peter Matten and on being put to the meeting, was declared carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved as set out in the report, subject to the amendment of condition 2 as follows:

2. The alterations under the proposal hereby approved shall commence and be completed within 12 months from the date of this permission.  The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved plans unless alterations are submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to their commencement.

WND/2022/0906 EAST HADDON – Revised design and remedial work following breach of planning of DA/2018/0157 and subsequent appeals APP/W2845/C/21/3279492 and APP/W2845/C/21/3279517 - Plot 1 Tythe Farm, Holdenby Road, East Haddon

The Principal Planning Officer Planning Officer outlined the application which had been submitted due to breaches of planning conditions and a dismissal at an appeal against enforcement. The building had been built larger than the approved drawings and this application sought to reduce the height of the building to that which was originally approved. The width and the height of the garage element would remain as currently built and the rear elevation was as approved. The two storey element was longer than that which had been approved. The applicants would be altering the porch as part of the application. There was a typographical error in paragraph 3.7 of the report regarding the length of the dwelling, which should read 36.5 metres as built. In paragraph 3.8 the word ‘not’ was missing. Members’ attention was drawn to the list of late representations and the proposed change of condition 2 which reflected the timing as approved on both appeal decisions, for a 12 month compliance period.

Further to an enquiry, the Development Management Manager advised that the original application had allowed for a dwelling to be built 34 metres in length and the building had been built to a length of around 36.5 metres. The depth in the originally proposal was for the building to be built at 6.2 and 9.5 metres and as built it was 7 and 11.5 metres so overall there had been approximately a 17.5% increase in size. The proposal before the Committee was not to alter the floor space but to lower the ridge height by 1 metre and to rebuild the porch. The garage feature roof line would not be altered. Therefore, the main alterations for consideration were the increase in depth of the overall dwelling and the increased height of the garage element.

Members raised concerns regarding: the lack of landscaping; the lack of a garage which would result in cars being kept on the drive; that the area that had been designated for a garage was now being used as the living space which had resulted in a larger increase in size.

The Development Management Manager advised that should the applicant require a garage to be built, they would have to submit a separate application.

Councillor Charles Morton, one of the local ward Members, raised concerns that the house was too large and it had a negative impact on the Special Landscape Area. He asked the Committee to stand by the Planning Inspector’s decision who had considered that the house should be built to the original application specifications.

Derren Wilson spoke against the application as the house had been built much larger than that which had been originally permitted. The size and the mass of the building detracted from the Special Landscape Area and it was in breach of the Local Plan policies.

Further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.