Three detached homes at Land West Of Tuthill House Kelshall Tops, Therfield

What was proposed

The application sought minor design changes to permission for three detached homes, including dormers, rooflights, a rear extension, garage doors and removal of a footpath access.

“This is a S.73 application seeking to vary planning permission 24/02606/FP (the parent permission) by way of making some minor changes to the external design of the three houses. Whilst the application is in effect a new planning application proposing three detached dwellings, the proposed changes between the approved parent application and this proposed S73 application are:”

“On the east side elevation of plot 1, two rooflights are being changed to two through eaves small dormer windows. 2. On the rear elevation of plot 2, two rooflights are being changed to two through eaves small dormer windows. 3. On plot 3, two rooflights are being added to the front roof slope, one rooflight is being removed from the rear roof slope and a single storey rear extension is being added. 4.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the design changes were acceptable, parking remained adequate, the lost footpath link caused no significant impact and the application was valid.

“There is also no objection to the changes to plot 3. The single storey rear extension would be 4.7m deep by 11.7m wide and allow for the house to comprise of a hallway with W.C, a study, lounge, utility and open plan kitchen, dining and family room at ground floor. At first floor level there would be three double en-suite bedrooms. The changes to the roof with the alterations to the rooflights would not have a material visual impact on the property.”

“The validity of the application has been challenged by a neighbour. The applicant has provided a legal statement setting out why they consider the application to be valid, to which officers agree. It is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether a planning application is valid and the application is considered to be valid and is able to be determined.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways, ecology, environmental health and the historic adviser raised no objection subject to matters stated, while two objections concerned village development and validity.

“HCC Historic Advisor – no objection subject to conditions.”

“The development is outside of the village borders, opening up further possible development and thus ruining the village. 2. The application is invalid as notice has not been given to the freehold owner of the land within the application site beyond the northern boundary of title HD307468.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative spoke in support and said he had no further comments because no objectors attended.

What members discussed

Members said there were no refusal reasons, the parish council had no objections, and the changes improved the site and biodiversity net gain.

“The following Members took part in the debate:”

“Given the report, there were no reasons for this application to be refused. • Parish Council have no objections to this application. • Thought original application was an improvement on what was there at the moment and nothing contentious about this application. • Minor tweaks were good, huge improvement on what was there and increased Biodiversity Net Gain.”

Minutes

The vote

A councillor proposed approval, another seconded it, and the committee then voted on the application.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.”

“Councillor Ruth Brown • Councillor Martin Prescott • Councillor Emma Fernandes • Councillor Val Bryant…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Development and Conservation Manager’s report.

“Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:”

“RESOLVED: That application 26/01416/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.”

Minutes