Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plan) of planning application 17/00599/FUL to allow for the retention of changes to design and size of the extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

28.8          This application was for the variation of condition 2 (approved plan) of planning application 17/00599/FUL to allow for the retention of changes to design and size of the extension. The application had been deferred at the last meeting of Planning Committee in August for a Site Visit to fully understand and assess the proposals. The Committee had visited the application site on 11 September 2020.

28.9          The Planning Officer advised that the property was a mid-terraced dwelling located within the village of Laverton and the variation of condition related to an application granted in 2017 for a single storey rear extension; the aim of which was to regularise alterations made to the external design and size of the extension. The application had been considered at the meeting of the Committee in August when there had been some confusion about what the proposal was seeking to regularise. Whilst a minor amendment was submitted which sought alterations to the roof design and parapet wall, the development was neither constructed in accordance with that amendment nor the original application. Likewise, notwithstanding the opinion of the agent, no alterations had been regularised under any of the three respective condition discharges. In view of this, the current application sought to regularise all deviations to the original permission. These included: increase in height of parapet wall – the parapet was originally permitted at 3 metres in height, the minor permitted it at 3.2 metres in height and the current application, as built, sought it at 3.5 metres in height, a total increase of half a metre; change in roof material – the proposal was originally described to comprise a “sedum green roof”, the minor permitted polyfibre glass  and the application sought as built an EPDM roof; changes to the fenestration – for example the windows and doors on the western and southern elevations; changes to the form and footprint – the original permitted length was 7.7 metres, the minor permitted it at 8 metres with changes to footprint and as built it measured 8.6 metres a total increase of 0.9 metres – the length was amongst other alterations to the footprint layout and height including an overhang and the final changes were to the roof light arrangement – the originally approved roof lights were comprised of two in alignment, the minor granted one large roof light and one small roof light and the current application, as built, sought three roof lights. In concluding her presentation, which visually demonstrated the changes from the original application, the minor and as built, the Planning Officer stated that, whilst the letters of objection received from the Parish Council and local resident had been duly considered, they were not felt to present sufficient cause to warrant a refusal and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

28.10        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. A Member maintained that it had been good to go on the Site Visit to see what had been permitted and what had actually been built. She referred to the photographs and plans which demonstrated that the changes were quite considerable and expressed her frustration at this situation. She had asked that a Member briefing be held on enforcement in order to provide some clarity for Members on what could and could not be done in this respect. Clearly there had been an impact on the neighbour as the actual build including the canopy was totally different from that granted permission and she could understand why the Parish Council was also objecting to approval of the changes. She indicated that there were other parts of the development that had not been built in accordance with the original permission and had been subject to separate subsequent applications, such as the upstairs rooms, but it appeared that there was little that could be done about this and there were no planning grounds for refusal. She thanked the Planning Officer for the detailed presentation which highlighted the extent of the changes and stated that, in the circumstances, and with a very heavy heart, she would propose that the application be permitted. This proposal was seconded, and a debate ensued with a number of Members expressing concerns about the extent of the changes that had been made in variance to the original application. Members felt that it would be very useful to have a seminar on enforcement particularly since it was felt very strongly that this type of issue was on the increase. The Chair advised that Members needed to think about whether they would have permitted an application for the development as built rather than focussing on the fact that it had been built outside the approved plans; although he acknowledged that the situation was enormously frustrating particularly for the Planning Committee. A Member stated that, on that basis, he was of the view that the Committee would not have permitted the development as built since it was totally out of character with the area, its size and construction were out of keeping and the neighbour impact was unacceptable. The Chair indicated that, if Members were of the view that this application could be refused, and were able to give planning reasons, then a refusal could be considered. A Member sought advice from the Legal Adviser who indicated that, if there were reasons for refusal that could be substantiated at appeal, then that was a matter for the Committee to judge but the decision could not be made based solely on the fact that it was a retrospective application it had to be based on whether what was now before the Committee was unacceptable on planning grounds. The Planning Team Leader (North Area) further clarified that, if the Committee was minded to refuse this application, it would be necessary to consider the issue of an enforcement notice which the applicant had the right to appeal against. In that scenario it was likely that the appeal would be on the basis that planning consent should have been granted and upon the case being heard by an Independent Planning Inspector, if the Inspector found against the Council, there was a risk that costs could be incurred if the Inspector found that the Council had been unreasonable and this needed to be borne in mind in determining the way forward with this application. The Chair indicated that, whilst he accepted this should be in the minds of Members, it should not be the overriding reason for determining this application and if Members felt that the harm was so great to warrant a refusal that was a decision for the Committee to make. Further debate took place on whether the proposal as built was so adverse as to warrant a refusal or whether it was acceptable. Upon being put to the vote, it was

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