Agenda item

Application to vary conditions 6 (Reptile Method Statement), 8 (Bird/Bat boxes), 9 (Badger Protection) and 22 (Listed of Approved Plans) attached to consent granted under app. No. 13/05391/F - proposed amendment to conditions 6, 8 and 9 to comply with approved plan and amended plans to reflect changes to development (Condition 22).

Agenda Item 7(c) Planning Application Number 16/05169/X – 24 Grove Road

Councillor Chris Windows declared an interest in this item since his daughter in law worked at Aspect 360 and indicated that he would not participate in this item.

Officers made the following points in respect of this application:

(1)        This application had been brought forward by the applicant to regularise the development and was a variation. It should be treated as a fresh application;

(2)        It was a large dwelling – the biggest change from the original application was floor space and the building area.

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(3)        This was a fresh application and had to be taken on its own merits. However, it was a key material consideration that in April 2014 a particular type of development was approved. Therefore, the comparison of that with the current proposed development is important;

(4)        All trees on the site were covered by TPO’s. An application to remove the Yew Tree had been refused and it was officer’s intention that it should remain in place. Since the development included a car port and not a garage, it would not disturb the roots of the Yew Tree very much;

(5)        Officers noted Councillors’ frustration that the developer had built a property that was completely different to what had been applied for and also that, if no action was taken, it could allow developers to think that they could take a similar course of action in future. However, a breach of planning control was not a criminal offence. There was no mechanism to punish applicants in such situations, although applicants were made aware that pursuing this course of action was at their own risk;

(6)        In the past, compliance officers were only ever to address a small percentage  of developments taking place and so this problem may not have been picked up in the past, until complaints were made. Since there were no longer any compliance officers, the Planning Enforcement Team’s response was entirely reactive and primarily reliant on being advised of situations by neighbours;

(7)        Officers recommended approval based on the application they had received. It was acceptable on planning grounds – the concerns officers had held about the trees had been resolved.

Councillors made the following points:

(8)        It was worrying that this could set a precedent for future applications and sent the wrong signal;

(9)        It is not right that there is one law for developers and one law for others – it was important that there should be justice and fairness in such situations;

(10)      Whilst it was frustrating that this had happened, it might be incompetence rather than deliberate. Following the work on the application made by Planning Officers, this was a reasonable scheme;

(11)      There was a concern about the blocking of light to one of the neighbouring properties. The possibility of knocking down this section of the proposed property should be considered. In response, officers confirmed that under Supplementary Planning Guidance 2, this was not deemed to affect it sufficiently to require this.

Councillor Mark Wright moved, seconded by Councillor Mike Davies and upon being put to the vote, it was

LOST: (2 for, 4 against, 1 abstention) that the application be approved.

Councillor Kye Dudd moved, seconded by Stephen Clarke and upon being put to the vote, it was

Resolved: (4 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions) that the application be refused on the grounds of the larger Plot 2 dwelling constituting overdevelopment, harming character and appearance of the Conservation Area with the decision to be issued once site notice period expires.