Agenda item - BH2011/03509 7 Elm Close

Erection of 1no five bedroom house. (part-retrospective)

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), Nicola Hurley, drew Members attention to additional comments in the Late List and gave a report detailing the scheme by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The original application had been granted in June 2008, and the works had been completed with changes to the original permission; the application sought to retain these changes with the exception of the first floor window. There were also changes to materials and the timber details and chimney had not been included in the build. The window at the rear would be changed and replaced with a smaller one, and the application included a condition that it be obscurely glazed. The Juliet balcony on the ground floor level had been deemed acceptable, but would also be obscurely glazed. The application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mr A Jeffers, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and explained that what had been built was a significant deviation from the original planning permission; the doors on the rear of the property would create a loss of privacy to neighbours, and the proposals did not prevent the doors and windows on the rear of the property from being opened. The failure to install the timber detailing and the chimney made the property ‘unsightly’ and not in-keeping with neighbouring properties.

(4)                   Councillor Brown spoke in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that both she and Councillor Bennett were dissatisfied with the application and the Officer’s recommendation. She went on to say that it was her belief the rear windows were originally conditioned to be fixed shut, and the windows that had been installed were too large. Elm Close was situated on higher ground than neighbouring properties, and, as such, this increased the problems in relation to over-looking. She noted that the tiled detailing and chimney had not been included, and asked that the application be refused.

(5)                   Councillor Hawtree asked for more information on the installation of the chimney, and in response Councillor Brown said that it was to make the property more in-keeping with neighbouring properties.

(6)                   Mr A Dodd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and said that the changes to the patio doors on the lower ground would not affect neighbours as they could not create issues in relation to overlooking. The proposed changes to the first floor window were highlighted and it was noted that the application did not contravene policy as it was recommended for approval.

(7)                   Councillor Hawtree asked why the changes had been made to the windows on the rear of the property, and it was explained that this was a decision of the developer who had since sought to rectify this deviation from the original approved planning permission. It was also conformed that the detailing and chimney were not included in the planning application.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   The Area Planning Manager (West) highlighted that there was no condition in the original application that the windows at the rear of the property be fixed shut.

(9)                   Councillor Farrow asked for clarification in relation to retrospective planning applications. It was explained that it was not an offence to start work without the necessary amendments to a planning permission, but this was undertaken at the developers own risk; it was the role of the Enforcement Team to take any action where it was deemed necessary. Further questions were asked by Councillor Hawtree in relation to the status of the development if the application were refused, and it was explained that the development would then be unauthorised and the Council could consider enforcement if necessary, although it was open to the applicant to appeal.

(10)               Councillor Davey asked if the retrospective status of the application affected the Officer’s recommendation, and it was explained that was not the case, and the recommendation would remain the same if it were a new application. It was also clarified that the distance from the first floor window to the boundary of the nearest property was 16 metres, and to the nearest property it was 45 metres.

(11)               Councillor Bowden noted the distance to the nearest property, and stated that there were also trees which broke up the line of sight. Councillor Carol Theobald stated her disagreement and said that the line of sight was not broken up by existing trees.

(12)               On a vote of 10 to 1 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted.

169.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.