Agenda item

With reference to minute 20 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 25^th June 2015, where Panel received a verbal update on this longstanding planning issue, to receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer providing information of the progress of the development granted by planning permission 14/00575/FU for a 4 bedroom detached house incorporating basement accommodation (part retrospective) and the applicant’s failure to comply with the terms of the unilateral undertaking

(report attached)

  Further to minute 20 of the North and East Plans Panel meeting held on 25^th June 2015, where Panel received a verbal update on the current position in respect of works at 56 The Drive Crossgates, the Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Members were reminded that the applicant’s 7 month timescale for the completion of the works, which formed part of the Unilateral Undertaking offered by the applicant, had expired.  In line with the terms set out in the Unilateral Undertaking, as the works had not been completed within the agreed timescales the Council had written to the applicant’s representative formally requesting that he demolish the property within 2 months of the written request.  The time period for this lapsing being 25^th August 2015

As had been seen on the site visit, construction works were continuing.  Discrepancies relating to windows were outlined to Panel, however the major issue which was still outstanding and raised significant uncertainty was the issue of the lift shaft.  Members were informed that the applicant wished to retain this feature in its current position however the applicant’s approved plans which formed part of the planning permission had failed to address this and the provision of the lift to the top floor of the dwelling would require modifications to the roof.  Applications had been submitted to accommodate the feature however it was felt that nothing which had been submitted could be recommended to Panel for acceptance.  A further revised submission had been received earlier in the week, however Officers continued to have concerns about what had been proposed

  Given the long and complex planning and legal history of this matter, the issue was whether the Panel considered Officers should proceed to enforcing the terms of the Unilateral Undertaking or be given scope to explore the possibility of working further with the applicant to achieve the approved form of development.  Members were reminded that a fallback position did exist

  The Head of Service, Strategy and Resources, Legal Services was in attendance for this matter and in response to a question from a substitute Member, outlined in brief the enforcement action taken and the subsequent legal proceedings, including proceedings in the High Court, which had occurred

  Members discussed the matter, with the following issues being raised:

·  concerns about the level of costs incurred by the Council during the length of time this matter had been ongoing.  An audit of recent costs was requested, with Members being informed this would form part of the overall costs assessment

·  the impact of the proposals on local residents; the length of time residents had endured the impact of an overdominant, unauthorised structure in their neighbourhood and the considerable difficulties there had been in holding the applicant to account

·  the ongoing uncertainty as to the completion and form of the build given the failure of the applicant to undertake the development in compliance with the approved plans and his representations seeking further modifications to the roof which was a sensitive part of the development

·  the possibility of taking further legal action directly affecting the applicant

·  that Planning Officers and Plans Panel had been reasonable throughout this process but that eight years for this to remain unresolved was not acceptable

  In respect of the need for the lift, Members were informed that representations had been received from the applicant to indicate there were disability issues within the family.  Although normally the personal circumstances of the applicant or family members were not usually considered as material planning considerations, these could be considered in exceptional circumstances

  Having considered all the information before it, including the officer presentation and the updated information in relation to the applicant’s request for further proposed revisions to the roof (which had been a critical aspect of the current permission) and the ongoing uncertainty, the Panel reached the view that further action was required in this case

  RESOLVED – i)  To delegate to the Chief Planning Officer the appropriate actions to carry out the demolition of the house pursuant to the terms of the Unilateral Undertaking

  ii)  That legal proceedings be progressed against the applicant in respect of his failure to comply with the terms of his undertaking to the High Court which reflected the terms of the Unilateral Undertaking

  iii)  That consideration be given to the tree at the front of 56 The Drive, to see if any potential overhanging issues to neighbours could be addressed