Agenda item

Mr Philip Stevens made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application.  He commented that this had been a difficult site since the first application in 2006, in that the proposal had been overlarge and overbearing on neighbours.  He commented that it had included a very long wall and the proposal was close to the boundary. However, eventually planning permission had been granted with a requirement that prior permission to change the garage structure or its use was necessary.  The Parish Council was concerned that the applicant had acted contrary to this condition which had been imposed to retain the garage in the interests of highway safety. It was commented that conditions were imposed for definite purposes and he suggested that if the Committee now approved this application, it would demonstrate to the public that they could ignore conditions.  He commented that approval would set a precedent for similar applications, which the Committee would then be unable to refuse.  He commented that the proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbour in terms of noise and disturbance.  Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal would go against a parking condition already imposed and the reasons for that condition. He raised concern regarding design, in terms of a window instead of a garage door, which he considered would be out of keeping with the rest of Westminster Way.  He reported that the Parish Council had felt strongly that this application should be refused and that enforcement action should be taken.

One of the local Members expressed sympathy with the views of the Parish Council and local residents commenting that the window would be large.  However, in planning terms he considered that the proposal was acceptable and should be approved.  He drew the Committee’s attention to the Inspector’s comments set out in Appendix 1 to the report advising that during construction it had become apparent that the walls between the twin garages which had been set in the space between nos. 40 and 42 Westminster Way, though poor in condition, should remain in place and that this had been included in the Party Wall Award set up between the two properties.  He noted that once this had been agreed, the already very narrow garage which did not meet modern standards, had become even more narrow and impossible to use.  At that point the applicant had taken the decision to extend the insulated cavity wall on the boundary between 40 and 42 forward to form the side wall of the enclosed space.  He had insulated the floor and mono-pitch to bring this narrow space inside the habitable envelope.  The local Member suggested that the applicant should have applied for permission for a change of use at that time.   Finally, he went on to comment on the drawings set out in the report highlighting that two velux windows were shown in the front elevation.  He recommended that the plans should be corrected.  Furthermore, he requested that the Officers should be certain that planning permission was not being sought for additional windows in the roof.

One Member commented that  there was nothing unlawful about retrospective applications and that the Committee was required to considered such applications without regard to this.  He emphasised that being retrospective was not a material planning consideration. He reported that anyone who undertook to construct a proposal without planning permission took the risk that planning permission might not be granted and enforcement action could result.  He commented that in this case there was the advantage that Members could view the proposal.  He considered that the proposal was acceptable and he questioned whether the rendering of the north facing wall could be required as part of this planning permission and that this should be done within a reasonable timescale.

The Officers advised that a condition to require matching materials was proposed and therefore it would be possible for the Committee to take a view as to what was a reasonable time to comply with this condition and then take enforcement action for non compliance if appropriate.

One Member referred to the loss of a parking space noting that a minimum number of parking spaces was normally required.  The Officers clarified that the Committee should not set unduly unrestrictive parking requirements and that the objective of the Government’s policy in this regard was to discourage the use of the car.

In  response to a question raised, the Officers confirmed that it was possible to pave over front gardens under permitted development rights.

Other Members supported the proposal, but agreed that the wall should be rendered as it was currently unsightly and would obviously be an irritant to the neighbours.  Members did not consider that there would be a noise nuisance resulting from the use of the room as a play room noting that it abutted the neighbour’s garage and not a habitable room.

In response to a comment made regarding the skylights, the Officers confirmed that the plans on the file showed two sky lights.

By 15 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that application NHI/6423/3 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.