Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/02631/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended conditions and additional informative:

 

Condition 4 be amended to read:

“4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and only the approved details must be implemented on site.  The landscaping plan shall include the following:

 

a)         which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained;

b)         what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting;

c)         the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed including boundary treatments with the neighbouring Claypit Cottages as well as within the development; and

d)         details of any earthworks proposed.

e)         details of additional screening to the western boundary of the site, to ensure privacy between the plot and neighbouring properties.

 

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site.”

 

Condition 6 be amended to read:

“6. No development shall take until details of the proposed finished floor levels; ridge and eaves heights of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted levels details shall be measured against a fixed datum and shall show the existing and finished ground levels surrounding the dwelling hereby approved. The ground level immediately surrounding the proposed dwelling, the finished floor level and ridge height will match those shown on drawings 19.20:03J and 19.20:05D.  The development shall be carried out as approved.”

 

The following Informative be included:

“It is recommended that approval is sought from the relevant Water and Sewerage Company (WaSC) for the intended discharge of surface water into the foul sewer which crosses the site.”

Audio Recording – 6 minutes 10 seconds.

 

Erection of one detached 3- bedroom dwelling house, including use of existing garage and existing vehicular access and provision of 2 further on-site car parking spaces (as amended by drawings received 16th and 18th December 2020).

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/02631/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs and provided the following updates:

 

·                Since publication of the report three further consultation responses from the neighbour at 3 & 4 Claypit Cottages had been received which had been circulated to Members;

·                The officer summarised the issues raised in these responses including the issues of land levels, surface water runoff and potential overlooking by users of the side access door of the existing garage.

·                Condition 4 requiring a landscaping plan to be submitted and approved prior to commencement was to be amended to include details of additional screening to provide privacy;

·                Condition 6 requiring survey plans detailing ground levels was to be amended to require the development to match levels as stated in the plans currently before the Committee;

·                The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had raised no objections and was satisfied with the drainage conditions but an informative was to be added to the report advising the applicant to seek approval from the relevant Water and Sewerage Company.

 

The Chair invited Alan Jones to address the Committee.

 

Alan Jones thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak in objection to the application and addressed the Committee including:

 

·                The committee should be bound by the decision of the planning inspector;

·                Policy 57 should continue to apply;

·                This site had an extensive and complex history with the planning authority in part due to officers’ failure to prevent the illegal construction of a property on the site which had to be demolished;

·                The first development permitted on this site was unviable due to the location of a drain and the applicant in that case went on to construct in an alternative but not permitted location;

·                Mr Jones had instigated proceedings for judicial review of the Council’s actions relating to the unlawful construction and these proceedings were still outstanding;

·                A senior planning inspector had ordered the unlawful property demolished and stated that the application approved in 2012 would be an acceptable fallback position for all parties;

·                The present application did not overcome the reasons for demolition outlined in the decision of the inspector;

·                The binding decision of the inspector stated that the operative issue was the distance between the proposed building and the boundary with Mr Jones’ neighbouring property, not the distance between the proposed building and his buildings;

·                Officers must not attempt to dilute the binding decision and must compare the application at hand with the approval in 2012 and examine any policy which might cause them to deviate from the development approved by the inspector;

·                References in the officer’s report to Emerging Policy D3 were not relevant and policy 57 deemed relevant by the inspector had not fallen away;

·                It was identified that 1350mm was the approved distance between the proposed property and the boundary of 3 &4 Claypit Cottages; any less than this distance would cause harm;

·                The officer’s report identified that this distance cannot be maintained due to the location of the drain and states that the application is to construct the house at a distance of 980mm from the boundary, on the basis that the difference between these figures is insignificant;

·                Mr Jones argued that if such a difference was insignificant the applicant should instead reduce the size of their proposed development by that amount.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                     Cllr Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions Alan Jones advised:

 

·                The officers’ report has identified that 1350mm is the correct distance between the corner of the proposed property and the boundary of Mr Jones’ property;

·                The applicant has confirmed that this distance cannot be achieved and a distance of 980mm is instead viable;

·                The difference between these distances is 370mm;

·                The officers’ report deems this distance insignificant; if it is insignificant the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed house by that amount rather than adjusting the position of the house away from the site approved by the inspector at appeal.

 

The Chair thanked Alan Jones for his presentation.

 

The Chair invited Cllr Claire Strong (Member Advocate) to address the Committee.

 

Cllr Claire Strong thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee including:

 

·                There had been much consultation with the parish council on this item;

·                The Committee should be minded of the importance of the inspector’s decision included at page 61;

·                The unlawful property had stood for 5 years until demolished and Mr Jones and his family had lived with an oppressive building at the end of their garden for that time;

·                The applicant has made a submission about the history of the site and did not appear to accept the decision of the inspector;

·                The Committee decided to refuse a prior application to retrospectively approve the building on this site which the inspector had deemed unlawful;

·                The adjusted application before the Committee did not align with the fallback position approved by the inspector and though the difference in distance may be small the inspector’s decision should be given due weight;

·                This development will be visible from the garden of 3 & 4 Claypit Cottages;

·                There was still harm arising from the location of this development and the application would not meet policy 57;

·                The only way for the applicant to satisfy the Committee of the suitability of development on this site would be to bring an application in line with the fallback position approved by the inspector.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Cllr Daniel Allen

 

In response to questions Cllr Strong advised that she had only had consultation with Alan Jones and with Offley Parish Council.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr Claire Strong for her presentation

 

The Chair invited Chris Watts to address the Committee.

 

Chris Watts thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee including:

 

·                He was an agent speaking on behalf of the applicant;

·                He was aware of the lengthy and challenging planning history of the site and requested that the Committee note that there were always two sides to every dispute;

·                The applicant was grateful for the officers’ recognition that the present application overcame the problems identified by the inspector and were recommending approval with conditions;

·                Previous concerns were specific and related to siting, scale and height of the house and its impact on neighbours;

·                It should be noted that plans submitted with the application were not accepted by officers until they could be verified as accurate;

·                On three occasions at appeal the Council had confirmed that the site can accommodate a detached dwelling and accepted the 2012 permission as a fallback position;

·                The proposed placement of the house is in a very different place to the unlawful as-built dwelling; the previously as-built dwelling cut across the sight line from 3 &4 Claypit Cottages and was materially closer to that property;

·                The sight line should not be considered in isolation and other factors including changes to the proposed size, height and scale of the property were important;

·                The new house was proposed to have a ridge height of 8.1 meters compared to a height of 9.1 meters of the house as-built and the height of 9.6 meters as originally approved in 2012; this is a significant reduction in height;

·                The proposed property as a whole was smaller in size with 3 bedrooms rather than the 4-5 bedrooms with rooms in the attic as allowable under the 2012 approval;

·                The ground levels had been reduced by up to 200mm as part of the applicant’s compliance with the enforcement notice and the applicant was prepared to reduce ground levels by a further 200mm as part of the current proposal;

·                The house would benefit from an existing garage which an inspector had been allowed to remain despite being visible from the neighbouring properties;

·                An independent transport consultant had examined the parking spaces and advised they were viable;

·                The applicant understood and accepted that permitted development rights would be removed in the interests of neighbouring properties;

·                The end gable of the new house facing neighbouring properties would have no 1^st floor windows and result in no loss of light or sunlight;

·                The proposed property would be at least 25 meters from the rear wall of N. 6 Claypit Cottages and at least 22 meters from the rear wall of numbers 4 &5 Claypit Cottages;

·                These distances were reasonably and normally accepted especially taken in to consideration alongside the reduced height of the property, reduction in ground levels, and the hedges along the boundary of property N. 4&5 Claypit Cottages;

·                The applicant had made major changes to the height and siting of the property in order to accommodate the outlook of neighbours;

·                The change in sight lines resulting from this proposal was under a foot in distance and could not cause the material harm suggested by the objectors.

 

The Chair thanked Chris Watts for his presentation.

 

The Chair invited the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the issues raised.

 

In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                Planning history was a material planning consideration;

·                Each application must be considered on its own merits;

·                On the basis that the application was considered on its own merits the decision before the Committee was not a clear cut choice between following the Inspector’s decision in 2018 and rejecting it;

·                Planning history including the inspector’s determinations was a relevant factor as were previous approvals from this Committee in 2012 and the features of the proposed development in the application;

·                The approval in 2012 included assent to a gap between the corner of the proposed property and the neighbouring boundary of 1.35 meters; the current application would have this distance reduced to 98cm, a difference of 37cm.

·                The officer did not suggest 37cm was totally insignificant but was relatively minor in the scale of the house, particularly in light of the reduced ground level and the reduced height of the house;

 

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

 

·                Cllr Daniel Allen

·                Cllr Tony Hunter

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The recommendations in the report represented his professional opinion and in his view an Inspector would agree with his assessment were this application brought to appeal;

·                The decisions of the inspectors regarding this site were circulated to Members to read for themselves and in his view they did not mean that no approval could be granted without the distance in question meeting the 1350mm mark; the 2018 decision stated that the crucial feature of the acceptable 2012 fallback position was that the development was situated north of the sight line and the unlawful house was significantly south of it as-built;

·                The current applicants were not the applicants for the 2012 approval;

·                The 2012 proposal could not be implemented without building over a drain;

·                The Committee had to determine the proposal in the application before them.

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed, Councillor David Levett seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 20/02631/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following amended conditions and additional informative:

 

Condition 4 be amended to read:

“4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a landscaping plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and only the approved details must be implemented on site.  The landscaping plan shall include the following:

 

a)         which, if any, of the existing vegetation is to be removed and which is to be retained;

b)         what new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas are to be planted, together with the species proposed and the size and density of planting;

c)         the location and type of any new walls, fences or other means of enclosure and any hardscaping proposed including boundary treatments with the neighbouring Claypit Cottages as well as within the development; and

d)         details of any earthworks proposed.

e)         details of additional screening to the western boundary of the site, to ensure privacy between the plot and neighbouring properties.

 

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site.”

 

Condition 6 be amended to read:

“6. No development shall take until details of the proposed finished floor levels; ridge and eaves heights of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted levels details shall be measured against a fixed datum and shall show the existing and finished ground levels surrounding the dwelling hereby approved. The ground level immediately surrounding the proposed dwelling, the finished floor level and ridge height will match those shown on drawings 19.20:03J and 19.20:05D.  The development shall be carried out as approved.”

 

The following Informative be included:

“It is recommended that approval is sought from the relevant Water and Sewerage Company (WaSC) for the intended discharge of surface water into the foul sewer which crosses the site.”