Two detached dwellings at Mansar, 1 Lamorne Close, Perranporth

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought permission for two detached dwellings, which were under construction and nearing completion.

“Information Classification: PUBLIC 1. This is a Full Application for the construction of two dwellings. The application is retrospective. There was previously approval on the site for the erection of two replacement dwellinghouses following the demolition of ‘Mansar’ (4no 2 bedroom apartments) under application PA22/07037.”

“The scheme has been submitted following application PA22/07037 which consented the demolition of ‘Mansar’ (4no 2 bedroom apartments) and the erection of two replacement dwellinghouses. Following this approval, the two dwellings on site have not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans in relation to siting nor design and it is noted that the proposed dwellings were shown as relatively lower than the neighbouring development to the West and East within the…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was formerly occupied by four flats and slopes downhill, with the dwellings appearing as three storeys from one direction and two from another.

“The proposal site was previously occupied by ‘Mansar,’ which was a former two storey building with a mansard style roof subdivided into four two-bedroom apartments. The proposal introduces two three storey dwellings set into the sloping topography of the site and thus appears as three storey from the north west and two from the south east. The benefits of the scheme is the creation of 2 modern dwellings in a sustainable location.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the design fitted the mixed local development, neighbour impacts were acceptable and highways safety was not harmed.

“In respect of the character of the area, the scale and design of the proposed dwellings is considered acceptable taking into account the mixture of surrounding development form, including dwelling design, scale, form and plot size, the proposal does not break from any uniform scale or design.”

“The proposal is not considered to cause highways safety concerns; two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling, with space to allow for turning and egress onto St Michaels Road in forward gear. This access point was previously utilised by the four flats which occupied the plot. Highways Development Management have considered that the proposal is acceptable.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Representations raised concerns about height, massing, character, biodiversity, drainage, parking, highways, overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing and overbearing effects.

“The planning issues and concerns raised are summarised as follows:”

“Height and massing of the proposed dwellings considered out of character and keeping and harmful to the streetscape • Overdevelopment of the site • Biodiveristy impact through loss of hedgerow • Surface water run off concerns • Highways safety concerns in relation to scale of parking area and manoeuvrability, increased congestion upon St.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish councillor and the agent spoke at the meeting, while the electoral division member urged refusal.

Members’ debate

Members debated the retrospective development, its differences from the approved scheme, its height and character effects, and whether a site inspection was needed.

“Members commented regarding the challenges of determining retrospective planning applications where the development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.”

“6 2. Concern was expressed that the development appeared materially different to the approved scheme and that construction had continued despite concerns being raised by local residents. 3. Some members expressed the view that a site visit would be beneficial to enable a clearer understanding of the relationship between the development and the neighbouring properties and would assist members when assessing whether the development had an adverse impact on the character of the…”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected a site inspection motion by six votes to three, then approved the application by five votes to four.

“Arising from consideration of the report and debate it was moved by Councillor Evans, seconded by Councillor Kenny, that the application be deferred for a Site Inspection to enable members to gain a clearer understanding of the relationship between the development and the neighbouring properties which would assist members when assessing whether the development had an adverse impact on the character of the area.”

“RESOLVED that Application No. PA26/01271 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the conditions set out in the report, and the electoral division member did not vote.

“7 NOTED THAT Councillor Blackman as the Electoral Division Member took no part in the debate or voting in respect of the above item.”

Minutes