Agenda item

Planning Application documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report relating to a detached bungalow located on a residential cul-de-sac.  The application was a revised application to the previously approved scheme for a new carport and garage and to the re-roof and render of the existing property, in that the width of the carport had increased by 1M. The application was retrospective as the works had been completed.  The application was at committee at the request of Councillor Harvey due to an overbearing impact, loss of amenity and not building in accordance with approved plans.   Letters of objection had been received from six neighbouring properties.

Pictures and diagrams were shown of what has been built.  The Officer stated that key planning concerns were the design, the impact on the street scene and the impact on the neighbouring amenity.  However having taken all these into account, the recommendation was to permit.

The Chair invited public speaker, Mr Tony Russell, to speak in support of his application.  Mr Russell made the following points:

·         The garage and carport were well within the building line and referred back to the previous planning application in March.

·         The building was done in accordance with the plans, but a mistake was made with the measurement by 1M.

·         The carport is 100mm inside his boundary and the garage is 250mm inside.

·         The neighbour’s property is over building line by 150mm compounding the problem.

Ward Councillor, Councillor Harvey was invited to speak and made the following points:

·         Neighbours saw original application and did not object back in March.

·         An overhang of 150mm, approx. 6 inches, is very different to the extra on the build of 1 metre (1000mm).

·         Neighbours only saw a problem once building work was completed and saw how close it was.

·         Gutters actually touch, so maintenance and cleaning of such would be a problem.

·         Developers and planning enforcement all agreed building was bigger than should have been.

·         Have a retrospective planning application for a plan an extra metre in width.

·         Not fair or reasonable on neighbours to have their amenities affected this way.

·         Neighbours have articulated C4 and SP7 of the policy as reasons for refusal.

·         Based on evidence to hand this should be refused and disappointed enforcement action was not undertaken.

·         Asked members to support his move to refuse.

In response to questions from members, the Officer confirmed:

·         That the works had been completed so was completely retrospective.

·         With regard to the building line, the council did not get involved in boundary disputes.

·         The application was a revised scheme to the previously approved scheme to rectify the works that have been built, in that the carport has been built one meter wider than was previously approved.

·         If the application had originally been submitted a metre bigger and been built over the boundary this would have shown up in the application and been a boundary issue.

During the ensuing debate, members made the following comments:

·         Upsetting for applicant when something built is not to the approved plans.  Design is fine but the impact on neighbours is not.  So will not be voting with Officer recommendation.

·         Previously approved plans on basis of 3.7M, but has been built at 4.7M.  This is a big difference and in contravention of original plans so cannot be supported.

·         If it is an error by the applicant’s professionals they should pay for it to be rectified. 

·         The impact on neighbours is there for ever.  Need to refuse on behalf of neighbours who would probably have objected to the application if they had known the dimension was 4.7M.

·         Objective planning view difficult.  There were no objections to original application and if it really has been built a metre nearer than proposed, need to see relationship to adjacent property.   If refused under loss of amenity, need to know what that is exactly.  Is inability to clean gutters a loss of amenity?

·         Sympathy with applicant, as during build someone should have realised proximity to neighbours and questioned the measurements.

·         Question of how neighbours would clean and maintain their gutters; creates a problem for them and this can be considered a loss of amenity. 

·         Carport has an overbearing impact and overhangs neighbour’s property.  Gutters actually look as if impinging on roof slates and the fabric of the house.

·         No mention of dimensions on the report, which not seen as a good reflection on planning and building enforcement.

The Interim Head of  Planning  advised members not to get too involved in a neighbours dispute and must consider this application on its own merits and relevant material considerations. 

The Legal Officer clarified that the boundary dispute was a private matter between neighbours and not a planning consideration for members. The Legal Officer further clarified that this was a new application and must be considered on its own merits and not that it was not built in accordance with previous plans from the previous application.

The chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to permit.

For: 1

Against: 8

Abstain: 2

Motion to permit LOST

Members discussed the reasons for refusal and agreed on loss of amenity, over development and overlarge in scale; design, citing SD4, SD14, D1 and SL1 of the policy.

Upon a vote to refuse for the reasons set out above:

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 3

REFUSED