Issue - decisions

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report. 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house and for the construction of a larger new three bedroom dwelling, including the repair of the retaining wall structure to the rear of the house.  Previous planning approval had been granted in 2021 pertaining to alterations and extensions of the existing property.

The Planning Officer made an amendment to the wording of the Recommendation in the report in order for it to better reflect the wording of the policy.

The paragraph on page 18, Recommendation 1 was amended to the following wording:

1.    The design of the proposed replacement dwelling does not enhance the valued character of the site itself and the surrounding built environment and landscape, reflecting guidance provided in adopted guidance and therefore does not meet the high design standards necessary to justify the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling.   It is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, DMC3, DMH9 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr Matt Hurst – Agent

It was noted that the retaining wall at the rear of the house is failing and is why the building needed to be moved by 2metres.  It was noted that it may be more cost effective and appropriate to demolish the existing building rather than undergo major engineering and structural works. 

This is a completely different type of development as it is a replacement dwelling  and therefore requires a different set of policies to be applied which require significant enhancement is achieved to the landscape and the built environment. It does comply to CC1 as did the original extension.  This application was submitted prior to the new BNG regulations. 

There was a question as to why the fenestration was not acceptable on this design however it had been acceptable on the previous application and this was clarified by the Planning Officer. 

The Officer amended recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and lost.

The Planning Officer outlined some suggested conditions which would be imposed on the application if Members were minded to  approve it. 

A motion for approval subject to conditions was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following planning conditions:

1.         Standard time for commencement

2.         Define approved plans

3.         Prior to works taken place, submit for agreement a demolition and     construction management plan

4.         Prior to works taking place, submit for written agreement precise levels        of the dwelling

5.         Sample panel for external walling including retaining wall

6.         Agree details of windows and doors

7.         recess of windows and doors

8.         Agree sample of blue-slate

9.         Agree details of air source/ground source heat pump

10.       Agree details of packaged sewage treatment plant

11.       Written verification that the development has been carried out in strict          compliance with the Sustainability Statement

12.       Omission of glass balustrade and rplacement with metal railings

13.       No external lighting unless in agreement with approved scheme         including design, location and candela

14.       Prior to occupation, at least one single Mode 3 compliant electric       vehicle charging point

15.       Black rain water guts attached to stone work, no fascia/projecting or             exposed rafters

16.       Roof verge to be flush cement pointed

17.       Remove PD rights

Also see United Utilities informative note