Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MP reminded Members that the original application was for 13 apartments, including bin and cycle storage.  This application is for a minor amendment to increase the store by 2.1m and also use if for gas metres, together with the addition of two additional car parking spaces.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Barrell, due to concerns from the neighbour.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Spencer, neighbour, in objection

When the original planning application was put in, saw the drawings, and the proposed east and west elevations; these showed the height of the proposed bin and cycle store on the same level as the wall to his property, and the base on the same level as Lypiatt Lodge.  Was quite happy with this.  Building proceeded with a large hoarding in place, and became concerned when breeze blocks could be seen over the top of this.  Spoke to the builder who assured him that the building was being constructed in accordance with the plans, later reassuring him that the developer and architect had confirmed this.  It was clear by this state that the building was 2.1m longer and 20cm wider than the drawing.  The height is overbearing and has a major impact on his garden.  On planning view, heard a Member state that the cycle store had been built too high.  Feels that, by questioning the height of the cycle store early, the builder had good opportunity to correct the matter at an early stage, and finds the disregard for neighbouring amenity and for the planning system very irritating.  Has read about a similar case in Stoke on Trent, where a building was put up 75cm than it should have been, and was rejected.  This cycle store has knowingly been built not in accordance with the original plans. 

Member debate:

PB:  it is true to say that the building is not in accordance with the original application, which is why it is back as a revised application now.  Members now need to look at what is in front of them.  The height is not changed; the building is now longer towards the neighbouring property, and therefore appears higher.  The architects have not been hones in presenting their drawings.  It is a tricky case, but as the height has not changed, will support the application.

KS:  asked for an explanation of the photographs.

BF:  when officers considered the original application, were they aware that the building would protrude that far over the wall?  Was there not ground for refusal on CP4?

MP, in response:

-       The building was always proposed at that height; it was part of the approval.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

4 in objection

PERMIT