Agenda and minutes

Apologies for non-attendance were received from Councillor Barbara Jenney.  Councillor Wendy Brackenbury attended as substitute.

The Chair invited those who wished to do so to declare interests in respect of items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were made.

Councillors Jennie Bone and Bert Jackson declared that they had undertaken informal site visits to both applications on the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Area Planning Committee Thrapston held on 28 September 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed.

Double storey rear extension and front dormer window.

Recommendation: Grant

The Committee considered an application for retrospective planning permission for a two-storey rear extension.  The application also sought to change the roof to the front of the property by adding a gable.  This was a retrospective application as what had been constructed was not in line with the previously approved application 19/02000/FUL.

The Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Andrew Smith, an objector; Councillor Peter Guttridge, on behalf of Woodnewton Parish Council and Laura Woollard, the applicant and the Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Mr Smith addressed the Committee and stated that there were visual impact concerns with the application.  He had had a conversation with the Planning Officer in February, where she had confirmed that the applicant was obliged to build what they had permission for.  The applicants were aware of a number of issues with the application which neighbours and the Parish Council had.  The original tiles were Collyweston and the proposed tiles did not compliment the dwelling as they were not sympathetic and did not match the existing tiles.  The Planning Officer had stated that the development was not highly visible but he had provided a photo which showed the contrary.  There was an increased 200% overlooking into his property.

Councillor Guttridge stated that the Parish Council had submitted a very detailed written objection.  There had been no objections to the previous application, but the development had been built using an incorrect site plan and had been built 3 metres away from the agreed footprint.  The development also overlooked 7a Main Street.  Complaints had been made during the build and the Enforcement Officer had visited, but no amendments to the build were made.

Mrs Woollard stated that she accepted that she should have consulted the Council during the build but they were managing the build themselves.  There would have been a 12-month delay on the tiles, and they needed to ensure that the building was watertight, so had used a variation of the tiles.  Grey tiles had been used on other dwellings in the area.  The windows were slightly larger but did not increase overlooking.  They objected to the Parish Council’s comments and they had the full support of neighbours.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•        Had partially obscured glazing been considered to reduce possible overlooking?  In response, the Development Management Officer advised that it had not been discussed or raised.  As there was a significant separation distance there were no concerns, but it was an option.

•        It was disappointing that this was a retrospective application and that the applicants had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Erection of a dwellinghouse following the demolition of an existing structure (Revised resubmission to NE/21/00970/FUL).

Recommendation: Grant

The Committee considered an application to erect a two storey, four-bedroom detached dwelling with an attached double garage with home office and games room above.  An existing agricultural style portal framed building within part of the site would be demolished as part of the proposal.

The Development Management Officer presented the report which detailed the proposal, description of the site, the planning history, relevant planning policies, outcome of consultations and an assessment of the proposal, providing full and comprehensive details.

It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

Requests to address the meeting had been received from Trevor Fowler, an objector; Councillor Peter Guttridge, on behalf of Woodnewton Parish Council and Mark Benns, the agent for the applicant and the Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions for clarification.

Mr Fowler addressed the Committee and stated that he had no objection to an appropriately sized dwelling within the building line, but the plans would massively exceed the site.  There was the potential to split the development into two dwellings.  The reference to the site previously being used as a market garden was not true.  The site was in a congested part of the village and requiring the necessary visibility splays would be impossible.  Emergency vehicles would also not be able to turn.  Why were there national strategies if the rules were not being applied to protect the village?

Councillor Guttridge stated that a number of Grade II listed buildings were mentioned in the report, but three other properties were not.  The site was in a conservation area.  The building would dominate and detract from the listed buildings and was double the size of surrounding properties.  There would be a breach of the building line and this would create a dangerous precedent.  Paragraph 8.3 of the report was misleading, and the other properties mentioned had met specific planning requirements.  There was a duty to protect the conservation area.

Mr Benns stated that key areas had been considered in the design.  A pre-application enquiry had been made and advice sought, which had received a positive response.  This application was similar to the 2016 application and the design had now addressed former concerns.  The Conservation Officer had not objected.  The applicant had no objections to the conditions being proposed.  The development could be a welcome addition to the village.

The Chair invited the Committee to determine the application.

During debate on the application, the following points were made:

•        Would the CEMP in condition 13, be approved by any members, and should they have sight of it?  It was confirmed that the CEMP would be approved by the ecology adviser, but they would consider what involvement members could have.

•        There was concerns about the visibility and safety splays not being achieved and the required width of the driveway also not being achieved.  In response, the Development Management Officer advised that the existing access already served a number of existing dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Chair thanked members, officers and the public for their attendance and closed the meeting.

The meeting closed at 7.35pm.