Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of planning permission 18/00563/FUL to allow for alterations to fenestration, building footprint and garden store (retention of works already carried out).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

22.32        This application was for the variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of planning permission 18/00563/FUL to allow for alterations to fenestration, building footprint and garden store (retention of works already carried out).

22.33        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was a sloping parcel of land to the west of the Coach House on Post Office Lane within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The principle of development on the site was established with the Inspector’s appeal decision and the extant permission 18/00563/FUL.  Construction of the building had already commenced and the works undertaken were not in accordance with the approved plans – there was variation to the footprint of the building which had been reoriented from south to north; the front elevation faced more towards north north west; alterations to the fenestration included a small window to the front elevation for the study, two small windows to replace three larger sectioned windows on the ground and first floor, and a study window on the side elevation being reduced in size; and a garden store with an external door to the side elevation had been created to the void under the drive.  The main issues for consideration were whether the design was acceptable, and the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  The Planning Officer explained that the orientation of the building had made the west side elevation slightly more visually prominent from views from neighbouring dwellings; however, the character and form of the building remained largely unchanged.  The alterations to the fenestration were on the south elevation and were in keeping with the overall design and the garden store was located under the driveway so was not visually prominent – given the acknowledged limited views of the dwelling, it was not considered that these changes would make the proposal unacceptable in design terms.  The Planning Inspector had considered the site’s enclosed nature, sloping gradient and that it was partially encompassed by more dominant existing residential development, and felt that any visibility of the development from open public areas would be against a backdrop of existing built forms and there would be no significant perceptible change caused to the wider landscape.  The scale of the development had been established by application 18/00563/FUL.  The building was set back in the hillside and, when viewed from the public realm, the slight reorientation and proposed alterations were not perceptually more harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Parish Council had requested a landscape condition to help screen the development but, given the conclusion that there would be minimal additional impact arising from the amended scheme, it was not considered that such a condition would be reasonable or necessary in planning terms.  Whilst the application was to amend the approved drawings, it remained the case that the proposal was for a new dwelling.  On the basis that the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the presumption was that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies within the framework that protected assets of particular importance provided a clear reason for refusing the development; or, any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole.  The were no policies within the framework which provided a clear reason for refusal and, given the extent of the changes to the plans, the impacts of granting permission for the amended scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the – albeit limited – benefits.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

22.34        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained he was representing himself and a number of other Post Office Lane residents who objected to the proposed development and were unhappy that detailed evidence, including pictures, had not been adequately represented in the Officer’s report, analysis and presentation.  This development had a history of planning creep and obfuscation and he indicated that, in May 2018, the owner had applied for a variation to the drawings approved by the Planning Inspector to move the garage and relocate the front wall to allow for increased parking.  The floor area of parts of the building had been increased by around 40% with the addition of extra rooms and this “minor” amendment had been approved by Tewkesbury Borough Council in October 2018; in May 2019, piling machines had arrived and work had started on the site.  In January 2020, residents had suspected that the building was not being constructed in accordance with approved plans, enforcement had been called in and, over the next two months the full extent of the changes had been revealed by the applicant to the Council – this application had arisen from the intervention of the Planning Enforcement team.  Recently released imagery of the site taken on 18 September 2019 showed the building foundations in place on that date and clearly showed the building rotation was also in place at that time which led to the conclusion that the building footprint had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans from the outset.  The local resident also noted that the unauthorised orientation and the blank wall design of the east elevation were now significantly different from the original plan approved on appeal.   The local residents wished to argue that the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties was unacceptable and the photographs included on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, showed the overbearing nature of the cold, stark and tall east curtain wall.  This was much more visible because of the rotation of the east end of the property out from the scarp as a result of not being built to the approved plans.  The visual impact of the end wall of the new development from the bedrooms of the Manse and Ivydene was particularly significant and unacceptable.  The local residents walked far and wide on the front face of Cleeve Hill Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on most days – they lived on Cleeve Hill to enjoy its splendour and beauty – and they, and the Parish Council, strongly disagreed with the assertion at Page No. 132, Paragraph 7.9 of the Officer report that the rotation of the building outward from the hill on the east end was not perceptually more harmful.  Near continuous views of this property were significant over 350 metres of the Cotswold Way, despite full summer leaf cover, and the natural westerly viewpoint, above the entrance of the Rolling Bank Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest, was marred by this development looking highly out of place within the group of traditional houses around the top of Post Office Lane.  The residents believed that the application detracted significantly from the views from these sensitive locations within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

22.35        A Member questioned whether the applicant had offered an explanation as to why the dwelling was not being built in accordance with the approved plans and the Planning Officer advised that the applicant had been present when she had visited the application site and had stated that the ground conditions when work had commenced had led to the reorientation of the building.  She confirmed that the planning application before Members was as a result of the enforcement case.  

22.36        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  During the debate which ensued, another Member indicated that the feeling among many local residents was that the building being constructed off-plan was completely wrong and that this had been the intention all along.  She was particularly concerned as to whether this would have been identified had the local residents not reported it to the Planning Enforcement team.  Another Member raised concern that Cleeve Hill was continually moving and there was an incident a few years earlier where a house located less than 50 metres from this site had been lost over the edge.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application suggested that the decision to reorient the building was probably made on the basis of the expert advice of those who had been employed to undertake the building works when they had assessed the ground conditions – he understood that rules were rules but there was an opportunity to apply retrospectively for that change.  A Member sought clarification from officers as to whether the tilted balance was engaged, given that the site was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and was advised that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, therefore, there was a presumption in favour of development unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole – as the harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty arising from this proposal was not considered to be significant, the tilted balance was engaged. The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) explained that Officers were just as frustrated as Members when developers failed to build in accordance with approved plans; however, this was not necessarily a reason to justify refusal and the judgement Members needed to make was whether what had been built was so unacceptable that it should be refused, bearing in mind that the principle of a dwelling on the site had been established by the Planning Inspector’s decision.  In terms of the photographs that had been included in the Additional Representation Sheet, he was not convinced they were a true representation of what would be seen by the naked eye and felt that the changes would be much less perceptible than they appeared shot through a zoom lens.  In the Officer opinion, the changes to the approved plans were minor and would not have a significant impact in terms of landscape harm so would not make the proposal unacceptable, hence the recommendation for permission.

22.37         A Member indicated that the Council had refused the original planning application, which had subsequently been overturned by the Inspector at appeal, and she did not feel she could make a decision on this application without visiting the site.  As such, she proposed that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the changes.  Aside from this, she felt that the Council’s approach to enforcement needed to be addressed, with better use of stop notices, and she undertook to take this up with the Head of Development Services outside of the meeting.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application stressed that Members received the Planning Committee papers well in advance and had an opportunity to consider the applications and request a site visit before the meeting.  In his view, deferring this application for a site visit would just be prolonging the inevitable and he found it very frustrating that this matter could have been dealt with.  The Chair agreed with this view and indicated that he was unsure what a site visit would achieve in this instance.  A Member queried what action the Council could take if the application was refused and the Chair indicated that an appeal was likely to be lost on the basis that there was no significant material change between what had been approved and what had been built.  A Member indicated that he wished to second the proposal for a deferral for a Planning Committee Site Visit; whilst he recognised that the building was already there, if Members did not go and look at it then developers were effectively being left to do whatever they wanted once planning permission had been granted.  In terms of the suggestion that the ground conditions at the commencement of work had led to the changes, he raised concern that a full ground survey should have been conducted well in advance of that and a variation application should have been submitted at that time.  The Legal Adviser explained that the development would require building regulation approval and the issue of ground conditions and piling were matters for Building Control; the Committee was required to make a planning judgement based on material planning considerations so, although Members’ concerns could be passed on to Building Control, this was not a matter for the Committee to determine.

22.38         A brief discussion ensued in relation to site visits and what the current situation was in respect of COVID-19.  A Member indicated that, prior to the pandemic, Members received notification of the applications to be considered by the Committee and a timeline for submitting requests for site visits but this information had stopped during lockdown.  Another Member pointed out that requests could still be made for virtual site visits whereby videos of the site were provided; however, physical site visits could only currently be proposed at the meeting.  The Chair felt it should be borne in mind that only one physical site visit had been undertaken since lockdown and that had been conducted on the basis that it could be facilitated with stringent safety regulations in place, for instance, the site could accommodate several vehicles meaning Members could travel alone etc.  He suggested that the Lead Member for Built Environment take this up with the Head of Development Services and the Member confirmed that she would do so.

22.39         A Member expressed the view that it was unfortunate that yet another development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans; however, he felt there was little option but to permit the application as the Council would inevitably lose an appeal if this was refused.  Another Member shared this view and felt that developers were riding roughshod over the planning process but Members had no choice but to support the application.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that, although he had made the proposal, he had done so with a heavy heart.

22.40         Upon being put to the vote, the motion to defer the application for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the changes was lost.  A vote was subsequently taken on the motion to permit the application and it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.