Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on a retrospective application for a 3 bedroom detached house incorporating a second floor ancillary granny annexe

(report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor R Grahame withdrew from the meeting)

  Plans and photographs, were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  The Panel’s legal adviser, the Head of Development and Regulatory, referred to the complex legal history associated with the site and informed Members of a preliminary issue in that the applicant’s solicitor had made an application to the High Court regarding the issue of height which had previously been considered as part of the court proceedings.  The Panel was informed that the principle of Estoppel applied in this case and that the applicant’s solicitor had requested the report to be withdrawn from the agenda pending the court case and that Judge Cockcroft, who heard the previous case, had been requested by the applicant’s solicitor to consider this case.  If the report was not withdrawn from the agenda, the applicant would reserve the right to appeal if the application was refused and apply for costs against the Council

  In terms of timescales, Members were informed that it was not possible to indicate how long the High Court could take to determine the case, although Judge Cockcroft was sitting in September, although whether this case would be listed during that time was not known

  Members were also informed that the matters referred to the High Court were central to the application, in terms of a final decision

  Having considered this information the Panel agreed to discuss the application but to defer and delegate the decision to the Chief Planning Officer

  Prior to considering the application, Officers were asked to outline the expected timescale for the applicant’s resubmission of a planning application following the previous High Court hearing, this being 21 days from 25^th November 2010

  Officers presented the report and clarified that it was Councillor Pauleen Grahame who had objected to the application, as this was not clear in the report before Members

The Panel was informed that the 2005 permission was the fallback position but that discrepancies in that application plan had come to light.   The 2005 plan had shown the fall of the land to be level, however a recent survey carried out by the Council indicated this was not the case and therefore Officers now considered that the height of the dwelling as allowed in 2005 was based on an error and that in light of the most accurate information, the height was a material consideration to be considered as part of the assessment into the current application

  The revised application was outlined for Members as were the two main issues for Officers: character and appearance and residential amenity.  Officers were concerned about the relationship of the property to its neighbours and were of the view that it would have significant prominence and that the alterations were unacceptable and went beyond what was acceptable in the 2005 application.  In terms of residential amenity, Members were informed that this was more problematic as the proposals were to move the rear of the building back to the approved line; because of this reasons for refusal relating to overlooking, loss of light and overshadowing were not being advanced

  In view of Panel’s decision to discuss the application, Officers sought a change of recommendation to defer and delegate refusal of the application to the Chief Planning Officer and if the High Court proceedings raised issues, the matter could be reported back to Panel

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent and a local resident who attended the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that this matter had been ongoing for 6 years; had been the subject of various reports, appeals, enforcement action and representations to the High Court and that credit was due to local residents for their tenacity in seeking to address the issue of unauthorised development in their neighbourhood

·  concerns at the statement by the applicant’s agent that if the Court agreed with the Council, his client ‘would consider’ further amendments to the roof

·  that if minded to recommend refusal of the application, that a quick decision be sought from the High Court, with little regard being attached to the applicant’s request for Judge Cockcroft to consider the case

The Chair sought comments from the Panel in support of the application but none were made

  RESOLVED – 

i)  To defer and delegate refusal of the application as set out in the submitted report, pending the outcome of the High Court decision and that if further issues were raised in these proceedings that the Chief Planning Officer submit a further report to Panel

ii)  That representations be made to the High Court requesting an early hearing date

(Councillor R Grahame resumed his seat in the meeting)