7
The Committee received report
ES/2415 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application
DC/25/1051/VOC. The Senior Planner gave a presentation, explaining that the proposal sought retrospective permission for the variation of condition 2 of DC/20/3495/FUL which originally permitted the removal of an existing shed and the erection of a two-bay cart lodge and store. The proposal sought to amend the drawings of the proposed cart lodge to show an overall taller building.
The application triggered the Planning Referral Panel Process because the Parish Council’s objection was contrary to the 'minded to' recommendation of officers. The Planning Referral Panel referred the application to Planning Committee based on the application drawing significant public interest.
The Senior Planner showed the approved and proposed block plans, street scene plans and elevations. He pointed out that the ground level was now lower than originally shown and the overall height had increased by around 90cm. He showed photographs of the site and building from various views. He showed the flood zone map as concerns about flooding were raised as part of the objections but it was not felt there was any increased risk of flooding resulting from this building.
He ran through the material planning considerations and key issues and stated that none of them were sufficient to refuse. Considered against all relevant material planning matters, the application was deemed sustainable and therefore it was recommended for approval in accordance with the NPPF and the relevant policies of the adopted development plan.
Councillor Hedgley asked if it was in the curtilage of a listed building. The Senior Planner explained it was in the curtilage of a grade II listed building but it didn’t require listed building consent as it was detached.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if by raising the roof it created a habitable space on the first floor which they wouldn’t have had in the original design. The Senior Planner said the Applicant had advised there was no real extra usable space as the trusses they bought were larger than they expected.
Councillor Smithson asked if the Applicant would have to return for planning permission if it was turned into a habitable space. The Senior Planner confirmed that they would for a holiday let or if they wanted to add additional windows. The limited roof lights didn’t make it very habitable and a condition could be added that the space could only be used for storage and not sleeping accommodation.
The Chair invited Lewis Marshall to speak as Objector. He asked for image 4 from the presentation to be shown. He felt the cart lodge was incongruous to the setting with its increased height. The ridge line was now higher than the surrounding listed properties and the doors make it look like a dwelling. He believed the vantage points should be greater and decision makers should pay special regard to the setting of listed buildings. The planning officer has stated there wouldn’t be significant harm but in October 2023 Storm Babet caused flooding to all four cottages. The concern was not from the river but from the road. He pointed out that from image 7 onwards it showed how much the cart lodge protruded which was something you wouldn’t see it if it was at the agreed original height.
Councillor Hedgley asked if he objected to the original proposal. Mr Marshall said he didn’t object as the hedge would have screened it. When the annexe was put on Pike Cottage it was said that it could only be used as part of the main dwelling, however it has since been used as two holiday lets. He believed the increased height would allow for use as another holiday let.
Councillor Trevor Gill from Letheringham Parish Council was invited to speak. He explained there had been 12 letters of objection which was around 50% of the village. The Council believed the letters have been considered but ignored. He said the Parish Council supported the original application but this building was now 90cm higher and the ridge line dominates. The VOC application says there was an error with the roof trusses purchased but you can see that the walls have been built higher. The Parish Council find it hard to believe that there was a mistake and feels this undermines planning integrity and trust when Applicants apply for approval and then apply for a variation. He urged the planning committee to enforce the original planning permission. He pointed out that Councillors were volunteers who gave up so much time but wouldn’t want to be involved if the system was regularly circumvented.
Councillor Hedgley asked if the Parish Council was happy with the original application. Councillor Gill said they were but this variation was totally different.
Councillor Daly asked if they disagreed with the planning officer’s view that the changes were not considered to significantly change the street scene to a substantial degree. Councillor Gill said yes and the street scene was now subservient.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if their concern about this being used as a future let was their opinion and would the impact be significant. Councillor Gill didn’t know if they wanted permission as a holiday let. However an extra metre of internal height was quite a lot and the set up was completely different. You could see it was totally different.
The Applicant was invited to speak. He explained he was not a developer but he was in environment consultancy. He stated that the property had been owned by the family for over 50 years across two generations. They approached with respect for the village and environment and the original application in 2020 was designed in collaboration with architects and the council. They had received no objections from anyone in the village. He said this application was to regularise the genuine construction error due to an error between him, the builder and roof truss manufacturer. He was away and a neighbour contacted Enforcement who found the ridge height to be 90cm higher. Work stopped once the building was watertight and they have fully complied with enforcement. None of the objections had been sent to him directly. He felt that the height increase was unobstrusive and was shielded by a hedge whilst the closest property was over 22 metres away. There was no loss of daylight or view and he did not think the height increase significantly impacted the village, which was the same view held by the planning team. He asked Members for their support.
Councillor Smithson asked if he owned and lived at the property. The Applicant said he didn’t live there but he used it often.
Councillor Ninnmey asked why the wall height had increased and who instructed the walls to be built higher. The Applicant explained that the first floor height was the same as the original application and there was an error with the pre-manufactured truss. Councillor Ninnmey asked again about the supporting walls being higher than the original plans showed. The Applicant explained that was in the design of the truss manufacturer. Councillor Ninnmey said he didn’t understand the explanation.
The Chair said that it was not just the height that had changed but other aspects had too and asked for clarity. The Applicant said they had dropped down 300mm into the ground due to foundations being constructed in wet weather. The window had replaced the doors and the window was smaller and matched the annexe. The Chair felt it now looked more suited to people staying there. The Applicant stated that they wanted more light into the store and it was not their intention to make this a holiday let.
Councillor Reeves asked the Applicant if the building would definitely not be used as a holiday let. The Applicant confirmed that it wouldn’t. Councillor Reeves asked if they would be content with a condition to prevent it being used as a holiday let. The Applicant said that wasn’t what they had applied for and it wasn’t their intent to use it that way and he would have to see what the condition said. The Chair said it would be as Councillor Reeves stated to which the Applicant asked for how long. The Chair said it would be forever to which the Applicant replied that he would need to look at the wording.
Councillor Langdon-Morris joined remotely and spoke as Ward Member. He had visited the site. Altering designs should go through planning before construction took place. He raised concerns about flooding in this area and they were seeing a lot of deviation from agreed planning permissions across the District. He said changes should go through the planning department and how far along the planning process were we allowing changes to be made. He therefore objected.
The Planning Manager pointed out that a key concern that had come out was the upper floor being used as a holiday let. He explained that it would require planning permission if it was. The plan showed the area was limited to storage and it would be reasonable to include a condition to limit it to storage space only. He offered reassurance to the Parish Council and community and said their objections were not ignored. Their objections directly triggered the referral panel and the application being brought to Committee for determination, so the democratic process had been followed.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if the ridge height was determined by the trusses or the supporting walls. The Planning Manager was not party to the discussions. He said they made recommendations and members have to look at what has been built and judge if that was acceptable or not. The original wall heights with the trusses may have resulted in an overhang and a change in appearance.
The Committee moved to debate. Councillor McCallum said she had sympathy with the residents. She said they either followed the officer’s recommendation with a condition that it could only be used for storage or they refused the application and go down the enforcement route at which point the applicant can appeal the decision. She was minded to go with the recommendation for approval with the additional condition about storage only.
Councillor Smithson had concerns about retrospective applications happening quite often when there was a proper process to be followed, so was minded to reject it. However if it was approved it must have the storage condition.
Councillor Hedgley had a lot of sympathy for the Parish Council and had a very similar situation in his ward. It had gone to appeal and they were still waiting for an answer after a year. He would go against the recommendation.
Councillor Fisher felt it would be difficult to enforce but what did matter is the greater impact from the increased height of the building so would vote against this application.
Councillor Deacon felt the impact was quite significant. Councillor Reeves rejected the recommendation to approve.
The Chair said it was the visual impact and the physical structure rather than usage that was the concern. Councillor McCallum decided to go with the rest of the committee.
The Chair sought a proposer for the report recommendation to approve but no-one wished to propose it so he sought a proposer to refuse the application. The Planning Manager reminded Members that they required a reason for refusal that referenced a planning policy. Councillor Smithson said it was the visual impact. Councillor McCallum said no listed building consent had been applied for, but the Planning Manager explained listed building consent was not required. Councillor Daly disagreed that the new change did not significantly change the street scene so it was the policy relating to landscape character that mattered. It was agreed that it was contrary to policies SCLP 10.4 and SCLP11.1.
On the proposal of Councillor Smithson, seconded by Councillor Deacon it was unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application be refused as it was contrary to SCLP10.4 and SCLP11.1.