Issue - meetings

Application for the amendment of condition 2 of planning approval C21/1210/38/LL to refer to amended plans submitted as part of this Section 73 Application rather than the plans referred to as submitted on the 14/12/21 as referred to in Condition 02.  

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Angela Russell          

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse the application

Reasons:

·        An overdevelopment. Concern that the height and size of the proposal would create an oppressive element over neighbouring properties and would disturb and affect the amenities of neighbours contrary to policy PCYFF 2

Application to amend condition 2 of planning permission C21/1210/38/LL to refer to revised plans as part of this s73 application rather than the plans submitted on 14/12/21 as referred to in condition 2.

Attention was drawn to the late observations form. It was noted that the Community Council ⁠had presented observations and the Planning Manager had fully read them out aloud.

Some Members had visited the site on 8 November 2024

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a retrospective application to amend a condition on planning permission that was previously granted to retain the development as it had been built. Following an investigation into allegations that the development had not been built in accordance with what was approved, it became clear that there were inconsistencies on earlier plans that were approved in terms of the height of the original house with the prospective property although the rest of the plans from a design standpoint were correct. As a result, and to regulate the situation, a further application was submitted to amend the condition relating to carrying out the development in accordance with the plans approved.

It was reported that the application had been submitted to the committee at the request of the Local Member in response to local concerns.

A discussion on the application was postponed in a previous committee to correct the plans from the standpoint of form and layout of the access and the parking area in front of the site and to reflect what is seen on the site. It was explained that the footpath had changed to a winding access ramp instead of a row of straight stairs as originally shown on the plans submitted. As a result, a second consultation was held with the Community Council, the Local Member, neighbours, objectors and the Transportation Unit. It was noted that with the consent of the Committee Chair, a site visit was held to give the Committee members an opportunity to see the property and the surrounding area.

Attention was drawn to the lengthy planning history of the site, detailing that an application to demolish a bungalow and erect a brand-new dwelling had been refused. It was highlighted that the application had been refused due to the appearance and design, local market housing policy and the impact on neighbours' amenities. Following this, an application was approved to erect a single-storey house on the site.

It was highlighted that there had been allegations that the owner had built the house that was refused, but it was noted that this was incorrect and reference was made to the plans and the pictures submitted as part of the committee report which showed that the development seen on the site was completely different to the refused plan. It was reiterated that this plan included three floors to the property (a garage on the ground floor, living space on the first floor and living space within the roof space, as well as a balcony). It was noted that the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7