Agenda item

Officer introduction:

MJC introduced this application to make variations to the planning permission previously granted for four detached dwellings.  The development is well underway, and this application seeks alterations to three of the properties to include basement and first floor accommodation.  It is at committee at the request of Councillor Baker, for Members to consider the impact on amenity, especially at 46 Bafford Lane.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PB:  Members may wonder why he asked for this application to come to Committee, having seen it on site and thought it looked fine.  However, two issues arise from this development.  Firstly, the cavalier attitude of developers and builders, who get planning permission and crack on with their building, but build something different from the permission they have been granted.  In this case, if it wasn’t for the vigilance of neighbours, these builders would have just carried on not building to plan.  Is not sure how vigilant we are as a planning authority; realises that there are manpower issues with CBC’s enforcement team, but these are significant alterations, and wants Councillors to have the opportunity to say that are not happy with the attitude of these builders – they should be more respectful of the neighbours and of the planning authority.   Secondly, officers have done a good job amending the amendments, but the developer has made an offer to reduce the height of Plot 2 which officers have not taken up.  Considers such a reduction would be appropriate and the offer should be accepted.

PT:  looking at the drawings on screen, feels the house at the top left is a bit close and could be quite intrusive to the neighbour’s garden.  Can we ask the builder to put in some sort of additional fencing or heighten what is there?  This would feel more comfortable.  Realises there are different levels to be taken into account here, but steps can be taken to ameliorate the situation.

BF:  having looked at the drawings and noted the increase being requested today, would have thought that this application should have come to Planning Committee the first time round.  It is a significant development and involves the demolition of an old Victorian house.

MJC, in response:

-       to BF, the original application wasn’t at Planning Committee because no-one requested it to be.  It is a reasonable-sized development, but not a major scheme, and the demolition did not require consent;

-       the increase in floor area is at first floor level, therefore not increasing the footprint of the building.  PB has alluded to the fact that when this application first came in, officers were concerned bout the increase and negotiated with the applicant, securing the reductions now before Members.  They also refused to consider any further development at the site as this would be considered excessive on this site, so it is fair to say that the developers’ proposals have been reined in;

-       to PT, the means of enclosure can be a risky business, and she has rightly said there is a drop in levels between the proposal and the property next door.  Increasing the height of the fence would make it disproportionately high on the neighbour’s side. There have been no neighbour objections on the issue of privacy, so would advise caution on any changes in this regard;

-       to PB, it’s true that the applicant considered reducing the height of one of the dwellings, having discussed the matter on site.  Although this was commendable, officers assessed that a reduction of 225mm on one block was not necessary.  Planning Committee shouldn’t tinker with applications on the night, and if Members are not happy with the heights, they should delegate the matter back to officers to pursue, in discussion with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

PB:  would like officers to do that, and puts this suggestion as a formal motion.   It is not unreasonable, and the developers have offered, taking account of the objections from the Parish Council and the neighbours.

Vote on PB’s move to amend the officer recommendation to a delegated permit subject to the reduction in height of Plot 2 in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair

13 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED

Vote on officer recommendation as amended (to a delegated permit subject to the reduction in height of Plot 2 in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair)

13 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT