Agenda item

Officer introduction

CD introduced the application as above, she explained that the property was a two storey residential dwelling in Prestbury accessed off Southam Road and the applicant was seeking retrospective planning permission for the increase in height of the ridge of the original dwelling. She advised that the other extensions and garage had already been granted permission, therefore, only the increase in ridge height was to be considered by the Committee. The application was at Committee as a result of a parish council objection.

Ms Jackson, neighbour in objection

Ms Jackson explained that neither herself or her neighbours were against upgrades to any properties including Tree Tops, they were proud of where they live and welcomed any improvements which make for better surroundings. Their objection, however, came from the way the project had been handled by the applicant. She felt that the construction was overbearing and was dismayed that it was done without consultation with all its neighbours. She highlighted that the applicant had provided various drawings which were inconsistent and confusing, and once permission had been obtained, the applicant went on to build 1 meter above what was granted, making the 2 storey extension taller and wider than was accepted.  She felt that the extra meter in the roof affected neighbouring properties light and privacy and created a significant modification to the whole of the extension which was now extremely imposing. She felt that the applicant had disregarded the planning regulations, its procedures and neighbours and that granting retrospective permission would encourage other builders to carry on breaking the rules in future. She felt that by removing 4 rows of breeze blocks from the back extension, the construction would at least, conform to the original drawings. She questioned whether planning permission would have been granted to the applicant had he submitted such a high elevation in the first place and requested that Members of the committee be vigilant on future applications in order to prevent further extensions. 

Mr Bence, applicant, in support

Mr Bence explained that he and his wife had lived in Prestbury for 13 years and were very much at the heart of the community. They had hoped Tree Tops would be their forever family home and a place to bring up their children. He explained that the original plans had been shown to the neighbours at Grey Gables and all the adjoining houses to the rear of their property on Mill Lane. He stated that they had all believed it to be in keeping with the area and showed no concern. They were disappointed that their ward councillors were unwilling to speak with them despite numerous attempts made throughout the build process. He noted that Tree Tops was a 1950’s mock Georgian property in need of major renovation and they had believed their plans to be in keeping with the local area. He explained that the original proposal included an annex over the garage with an adjoining link, which they had taken out at the request of the planning officer. He confirmed that they had no intention of going into the main roof space initially; however, without the annex they needed space to accommodate their elderly parents and growing family. He explained that the architect had made a genuine mistake in measurements and they had subsequently ordered new trusses, they were unaware that they needed planning consent which was a massive over sight on their part. Enforcement officers had advised them that retrospective planning permission would be required but they could carry on at their own consequence. He highlighted that they had stopped all works to the roof immediately out of respect for their neighbours and this had subsequently put the project back 4 months. He did not feel the development was subservient or over developed, it was a large plot and they had only taken 20% for building land, he noted that many of the surrounding houses were 80% building land, 20% garden. He highlighted that the majority of objections related to aspects of the house that had already been granted permission. He reiterated that they had worked hard to create a house that was in keeping with the area and were disheartened by accusations that they were being dishonest. They felt that the plans had hugely improved the plot and without the roof space the house was not fully functioning for their needs. He confirmed that the reasons the drawings were slightly different was because they had switched architects due to the error.  

Councillor Baker, in support

Explained that he knew the applicant through the football club, he felt it unfortunate that the ward councillors couldn’t speak on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated that this was simply about the roofline, not about how the project had been handled. He acknowledged that the application was confusing for residents but explained that the plans had been changed due to consultation with the planning team and as a result of objections; they had also changed architects to get a situation that was acceptable in planning terms. He noted that on planning view they had sat in the garden of number 5 and they couldn’t see the ridgeline of the house from the garden. He felt the Parish Council’s objections were unfair and nothing in the design conflicts with the NPPF. He highlighted that the applicant had come back to a compromise situation to appease residents and to come in line with planning.

Councillor Baker left the chamber for the debate and the remainder of the meeting.

Member debate

MC: Explained that he didn’t like retrospective planning applications and it was difficult to know whether cases were genuine. However, since going on planning view he didn’t have a problem with the application.

SW: Felt it unfortunate that they were not looking at the whole design which he felt was appalling and not subservient; he was disappointed that it had got planning permission in the first place. He requested that they carefully think about what applications come to committee in the future. Whilst he had great sympathy with the neighbours he acknowledged that they were only here to discuss the ridge height, which could not been seen from next door as it was below the height of the extension, he therefore didn’t think they were in a position to refuse.

RH: Noted that from planning view, the extension was very close to the neighbours and she could understand why they felt uncomfortable. However, with regards to the ridge line, she couldn’t see any reason why they would refuse the application and so she would be supporting it.

JP: He explained that Tree Tops had been an elegant house, sitting in substantial grounds which were very private and unimposing on neighbouring properties. Whilst he accepted that the majority of the building had been granted planning permission he had concerns that throughout the whole development process there had been no consideration or meaningful engagement with neighbouring residents. He noted that the ridge height had been an alleged error on the architect’s part which had resulted in insufficient head room in the roof space. He suggested that an appropriate course of action for an experienced developer would have been to submit a planning application in the normal way and this would have given residents the opportunity to comment. Instead, he felt that the applicant had gone ahead and significantly increased the ridge height of the roof to the applicant’s benefit but to the detriment of neighbours, particularly those living in the Stables development. He noted that the plans had recently been modified and the architect had created an optical illusion to give the impression of a more balanced front elevation, however, the ridge height remained unchanged. He felt that the changes to the front elevation had no impact on residents to the rear who still have to endure a ridge height 800mm above what was originally permitted. He felt it an unsatisfactory incident that would never have arisen if due process had been followed.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT