Agenda item

Agenda Item 6

Officer report on enforcement proceedings at Sandford Dene, Lake Street

CL:  said Para 1.4 in the officer report explained why this item was before Planning Committee tonight.  Said Planning Committee has no powers regarding enforcement matters, but the item was on the agenda for their notice, consideration and comments, following their decision regarding the heat pump in January 2012.  Said the power to decide and act on this matter was with Officers, delegated to them by the Council not by Planning Committee, and Officers could not delegate this decision back to Planning Committee, only seek their Members’ opinion.

BD:  remembered this application from Planning View, and thought that if the planning authority makes rules, it should stick by them, and if the applicant had done something wrong, it should be removed.  Otherwise, the applicant appeared to thumb his nose at the Council.  Thought the planners should stand up and be counted, not make decisions under the fear of costs – this was wrong.

BF:  had read the report.  Noted that the fence had been put up, the noise had been measured, and the new fence and trees found to deaden the noise.  Had noted the test results at the end of the report and the times that these were taken in the morning – said it all complied with noise regulations.  Said there was a lot of noise in the world, and no-one can live in silence.  Thought it would be wrong to pursue this enforcement case.

MS:  took a different view and supported BD.  On Planning View had thought the heat pump was not acceptable – it was noisy and produced a cold blast of air.  Said it was alien to have this stuck next to a house, especially when it should and could have been installed round the corner.  Thought the enforcement team should try to get it removed.

PJ:  thought the noise was unacceptable.  Said an important condition had been ignored, a subsequent condition had also been ignored, and if these were not enforced, asked what message  this would give to the building community.

HM:  said Mike Redman had been waiting to hear views of Members.

CL, in response:

-          said a vote could be taken on whether or not Members thought enforcement action should be taken.

PT:  asked whether an Inspector would ask for the heat pump to be moved or not.

GB:  asked if Members’ decision was binding or not.

MJC, in response:

-          confirmed that Members’ decision would not be binding;

-          said the enforcement action would be the removal of the air source heat pump;

-          MS had mentioned the cold blast of air, but pointed out that there is now a close-boarded fence in place of the old fence, which prevented the cold air from affecting the neighbours – so one part of the refusal reason had been covered;

-          said Officers and Members had had a clear steer from Environmental Health, and if the enforcement action went to appeal, there would not be much chance of success on amenity grounds.  The noise levels had been measured with proper equipment and there was no loss of amenity case to answer – the appellant would place a lot of weight on this;

-          when permission was granted, PD rights were removed, but Members should remember that air source heat pumps fall within PD rights.

BD:  asked if it had been suggested that the heat pump be moved further down the wall.

PT:  said it had been suggested it was moved round the corner.

MJC, in response:

-          said there had been discussion of this, and he had visited the site on two or three occasions.  The applicant was not prepared to move the pump;

-          said the enforcement notice would therefore have to be to remove the heat pump, as the applicant had made it clear that he was unwilling to move it round the corner.

Vote taken on whether Members recommend that enforcement action does NOT proceed

6 in support

5 in objection

4 abstentions

Recommendation that enforcement action does NOT proceed