Agenda item

Further to the report, the Officers explained in detail the differences between what was proposed and what had been built.  Members were advised that should they be minded to approve the application, permission to do so should be delegated to the Chief Executive to enable the detailed wording of the conditions to be agreed to take account of the fact that works had commenced.

Dr P Hawtin made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He commented that the planning application had a moral dimension as well as material reasons for refusal.  He considered that the proposal was disingenuous bordering on outrageous and that the Officers’ report was misleading.  He suggested that the applicant had had a total disregard to the original planning permission and that the changes were in no way minor. He reported that the parish Council strongly considered that the application should be refused.  He referred to the stress that the development had caused to local people without any explanation regarding the reasons for it. He suggested that the explanation that the site was large was insufficient to warrant permission for an application which was unacceptable.

Dr J Deech made a statement objecting to the application expressing concern that the applicant had disregarded the previous permission.  He suggested that if permission was granted for this retrospective application it would send out a message to the public that planning permission could be ignored.  He suggested that the Committee would not have approved the current proposal at the initial planning permission stage in view of loss of privacy to the neighbours, overlooking and fenestration details.

Mr Grady also made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding loss of privacy; an intimate and intrusive view into the bedrooms of neighbouring property; the proposal being contrary to planning policy and fenestration positioning.  Furthermore he considered that permitted development rights should be removed.

Mr Winand had given notice that he wished to make a statement at the meeting objecting to the application, but he declined to do so.

Mr C Pugh, the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He advised that he was a designer and due to his personal circumstances and the recent death of his mother it had taken him longer to submit a planning application for the proposal and he apologised for the application being retrospective.  Furthermore, there were restrictive covenants on the land which he had regard to. He reported that the original proposal had been unsatisfactory in that there had been a need to allow light into the building.  He commented that such matters were not always apparent at the initial design stage.  He suggested that if this proposal had been made initially it would have been approved.  He referred to the size of the plot and the building constraints.  Finally he questioned the concerns regarding overlooking comment whilst the neighbour’s windows were visible it was not possible to see into the accommodation.

One of the local Members reported that he had been approached by the neighbours regarding this application and had had an opportunity to look around the house.  He commented that the applicant had disregarded the existing planning permission and had continued construction.  He expressed concern regarding enforcement, commenting that this matter had been reported to the Council in February.  He explained that when he had been in the house, it was possible from the window on the south eastern elevation to look directly into the neighbouring property at No.10.  He commented that the bathroom windows were not inward opening and there would be overlooking from those also.  He considered that the application should be refused.

Another local Member expressed concern regarding design and fenestration. He asked that it be recorded in the minutes that the applicant was guilty of the most arrogant flouting of the planning system, at least as he could recall in 10 years on the Committee, which was insulting to the Officers, the neighbours and Members.  He further asked that it be recorded in the Minutes that for the benefit of like minded applicants, if an approved scheme could not be built on site, for whatever reason, courtesy and due regard to the planning system required that the applicant should discuss problems with the relevant officers and neighbours before embarking on construction of a proposal without the benefit of permission.

One Member expressed concern regarding enforcement generally suggesting that the Council’s policies in this regard needed amending.  The Officers responded that a national process had been applied in this case.  Furthermore, the Committee was advised that it should consider the proposal on its merits as presented and the fact that the application was retrospective was not a material planning consideration.

One Member considered the proposal acceptable commenting that it was marginally different to the approved scheme, noting that the front elevation was the same.  He suggested that overlooking of front gardens was not unusual and he could see no harm.  Another Member concurred with this view.  In response to a question raised the Officers explained that on the northwest, the bathroom window would lie about 16 metres from the neighbouring property at No.11 and the next window along was a bedroom window with a distance of about 20.75 metres from the neighbouring property.  The Officers explained that the guidelines referred to window to window distances. It was clarified that the distance from the bedroom window of the application house, to the window of the neighbouring property was likely to be in excess of 21 metres which was within the guidelines.

Another Member expressed concern regarding the width of the garage, as well as the likely overlooking from the windows on south west elevation.  He commented on the timescales for requiring planning permission in cases where work commences which he suggested should be shorter.  He reported that this was a matter which the Council could control.

In response to a question raised, the Officers confirmed that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application, the issue of enforcement action could be considered at a future meeting.

It was proposed by the Chair that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application CUM/18082/2 subject to appropriate conditions.  This was lost by 9 votes to 8.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber, seconded by Councillor Terry Cox and by 9 votes to 8, it was

RESOLVED

that application CUM/18082/2 be refused, with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee such reasons to include the visual impact of the expansion of the garage and the adverse impact of the windows in northwest elevation in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.