1013
The Committee considered an application for variation of condition 2 following grant of planning permission of application 212888 (Daylight and Sunlight report received) Reduced Ridge height of plot 1 including introduction of two chimneys. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as it had been called in by Councillor Buston for the following reasons:
1. Over development
2. Ignoring the Planning Conditions imposed in 212888 approved 21 Apr 21
3. Development over a former publicly accessible Open Green Space
4. The Previous Application for development on this site (21 0304) was dismissed on 10 Sep 21, citing, as reason for dismissal (inter alia): “1. The proposed three dwellings, by reason of their detailed design, form and scale ( including being higher than the adjacent properties) would be out of keeping with and harmful to the character of the established street scene and surroundings.” Thus that the current building have been erected on site without reference to the plans Approved in 21 2888, in particular the height of these buildings. Policies UR 2 and DP1, and the (Borough) Council’s adopted “Backland & Infill Development” SPD, in particular infringed.
The Committee had before it a report and Amendment Sheet in which all information was set out.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application to the Committee and assisted the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee heard that further revised plans had been submitted to reduce the ridge height on plots 2 and 3 (in addition to plot 1 as previously proposed) It was detailed that the revised scheme sought approval for a reduction in ridge heights for all three dwellings as requested by the Committee. The revised plans show the following:
- That plot 1 would be reduced from 0.715m above the height of N.o7 to 0.300m.
- That plot 2 would be reduced by 0.374m (to 7.420m)
- That plot 3 would be reduced by 0.309m (to 7.470m) but that the gable end would not be amended and would be retained as built.
The Committee were asked to note the additional points as raised at previous meetings that the distance between plot 1 and N.o 7 Marlowe Way was 0.5m closer than approved and that the kitchens had been built 0.6-0.7m higher than approved and that it was recommended that these be retained as built. Members of the Committee were shown photos of the dwellings in their current built form as well the kitchens and the views from a neighbouring property. The Senior Planning Officer presented the elevations of the proposal as amended and their relationship with the existing properties. It was noted that an issue had arisen where letters of re-consultation had not been received and as such the consultation would not end until the 22 August 2023 and as such the application would not be determined until that date and receipt of no further representations raising materially new planning considerations, and that if these are received then then the matter would be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. The Senior Planning Officer detailed that it was considered that the application would be acceptable and there would be limited impact on neighbourhood amenity with no loss of light from the kitchens being built higher than approved. Furthermore, it was noted that there would not be any loss of outlook from the kitchens that were deemed to be visually acceptable. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the officer recommendation was for approval as detailed in the report and amendment sheet with the added point that the if further representations raising materially new planning considerations were received before the 22 August 2023, then the matter would be referred back to the Committee for further consideration.
Simon Sorrell addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. The Committee heard that the founding principle is that decisions should be taken in the public interest and that there was a clear instruction from the Committee to reduce the height and that it was in the public interest that it was altered as the proposed pitch appears incongruous and alien with the surrounding area. The speaker outlined that the applicant had put forward a partial resolution and outlined that the proposal had been granted on the basis of misleading drawings and which showed the development in line with the existing dwellings. The speaker detailed that all parties knew what the development statement said and that they continued to build the dwellings and that this was at the developers risk. The speaker concluded by detailing that the Committee were asked to favour the developer and requested that the dwellings be reduced in height.
Robert Pomery (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee procedure Rule 8 in support to the application. The Committee heard that the proposal was not taller than the original dimensions as approved and detailed that enforcement action would not cause a reduction in height with rear storey projections of the kitchens being taller than approved but confirmed that Officers had found them acceptable. The speaker detailed that the buildings were at the correct height but that the street scene drawings were incorrect. The Committee heard that plans had been provided regarding the reduction of all three dwellings but outlined that the applicant did not think this was possible and asked Members to carefully reconsider the proposal as they had the power to decide over the scheme before them or the others that have been put in front of the Committee previously. The speaker concluded that the preferred option would be to approve the proposal as built.
The Democratic Services Officer read out the statement as follows from Councillor Buston, Ward Member for Prettygate:
“Apology
My apologies to you and to residents for not being able to be with you this evening but I have to attend the funeral of an old Army chum in Salisbury – and as I am also an Executor, will likely be there for some days.
The Application
Both Members and Officers as well as the Residents I am instructed to represent are sadly all too familiar with this case and this site.
I have been asked as Ward Councillor , yet again, by what seems like the residents of the whole area , yet again, over the last 2 – 3 years following serial Applications in both Marlowe Way and Colvin Close involving the former Lexden Manor site - all at essentially the same place, to call in this latest iteration of the speculative and overbearing development of the former Lexden Manor site , and the former green open space land in Marlowe Way , used by the public for over 50 years , they have been deprived of as a result of it.
Bizarre indeed would be an understatement to note that only yesterday an application relating to Green open space such as this plot in Marlowe Way used to be ( Application 23 1481) was comprehensively and correctly refused by CCC : this being the second time an application has been comprehensively refused on this Green open space.About 5 years from this site. I commend both Members of the Committee as well as Officers to study the reasons for this refusal carefully : as they are exactly those MPC as appertain to this site in Marlowe Way as well, and encapsulate the reasons that should have been applied to all the applications on this site to refuse development upon it.
Nonetheless , Officers will say, “we are where we are”. Again I have to I suggest that this is not , and cannot be so.
It is common ground before the Committee I submit :
1. The Rooflines of the 3 dwelling houses as have now been built ( and from the estate Agents board apparently 2 already sold ) without consideration to the detail of the approved plans - being higher than they should be.
2. That at least one of the houses is built closer to the adjoining existing property than it should have been.
3. The rear portions of the 3 dwellings have been built larger than the approved plans permit.
Whether these discrepancies be by 3 inches or 3 feet , and whether these errors be deliberate or negligent makes no difference in Law. They are wrong. They are not “de minimis”. They are cumulative, at worst, evidence of an “intent” to exceed permission given - or perhaps at best, a singular “negligent” inattention.
I suggest that the Committee now has 4 options :
1. The preference of Residents :
That as a result of the either deliberate , negligent or accidental infringements of the Planning Permission as was originally granted ( and whether this was appropriately granted or not) , as have , to this day have deliberately not been addressed by the developer, the direction now be given that site be restored to its former green open space state and condition.
Residents , who have had to put up with all of this nonsense for the last 2-3 years deserve no less from the Council that they have to pay for : this being to apply the Planning Rules both even handedly correctly and appropriately according to both Equity as well as the Law.
2. The least worst option :
That the developer
a. be required to reduce the height of all the roofs of all 3 of the dwellings to the height originally laid down in the grant,
and further, in view of the continued inattention on the part of the Developer to the original plans and specifications,
b. the extensions to the rear of the properties now be required to be rebuilt to the dimensions shown on the original plans, and the walls of the dwellings themselves rebuilt to the right place apropos their neighbours.
The wrongful construction of these rear portions of the buildings to a larger size than was authorised by the Permission granted, in passing, has already been recorded formally as being admitted by the Applicants agent.
…..both a. and b. above , it should be pointed out, simply requiring the dwellings to be constructed as was set out and laid down by the Planning Permission originally granted.
3. The second worst option :
That the developer be allowed only to reduce the height of such of the dwellings as the developer chooses, and in addition the incorrect building of the rear portions of the buildings, and their position be ignored.
4. The worst option :
That the developer, as now, simply be allowed to do as it wishes, and the Council continue to take no action.
The officers report to this current scenario has again had to be presented in such a way as to minimise the significance of a situation where developers have paid scant attention to the detail of the permission as was originally granted - irrespective of whether that permission was worthy of being granted in the first place or not, and , significantly , the developer continues to take no action to rectify the errors it alone has commissioned. Thus the report one might assume favouring option 4 above ?
As I have said to the Committee before , and sadly I have to say again , such path should not be contemplated. Residents have every right to expect this Committee to afford them both recognition as well as … dare I say it : justice - in an even handed application of the Planning rules .
What is right is right.
What is wrong is wrong.
Planning Law is not a subject where you can either conveniently “ make it up as you go along” , or indeed “ run with the fox and hunt with the hounds” , in order to conjure up compelling arguments adjusted to suit your cause after an event has occurred, in order to attempt to excuse deficiencies as have been identified and committed during it.
Otherwise, gentlemen, ladies , yet again we have to ask ourselves : why we are here ?
Procedure
Finally residents have asked me to bring formally to the Committees attention a disappointing catalogue of procedural and other errors that seem to have occurred in the matter from its outset – such errors they lay firmly at the door of the Planning Department. I will put to one side for a minute residents accusations of a deliberate bias.
As an elected Member , their Councillor, it gives me no pleasure to be asked by them to address any of the above.
The sitting of this Committee has been deferred , we all understand, because , inter alia, the appropriate notices , residents indicate to me, had either not been sent out to them at all , or they indicate to me, when sent, such not in a realistic or timely manner.
Just to cite the most recent instance I have today been asked to address , residents refer to me formal letters from CCC to residents dated 08th August 23 , inviting comment upon the current proposals to be submitted within 14 days. Fine.
Or is it ? 14 days from 08th August 23 is , by my admittedly often disappointing Maths , 22nd August 23 .
Today , the date of the Committee Hearing when judgement will be handed down, is 17th August 23 ?
I am asked how can this Committee properly sit to impose a decision in a matter before the date for the closure of the advertised and declared consultation period has occurred ?
Residents ask me if there is any good reason why they should not commission a Judicial Review of CCCs Planning Department and the Committee ? If there are , perhaps I might be furnished with them , please, so I may respond ?”
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to questions that were raised by the Committee following the Have Your Say speakers. The Committee heard that the proposed chimneys would be for decorative purposes only and would not be functional.
Members debated the proposal on issues including: the acceptability of the proposal in terms of the height of the dwellings being taller than the existing dwellings with some members expressing the view that the height of the proposal should be in line with the existing dwellings. A proposal was made to refuse the proposal but a seconder was not found.
Members continued to debate the proposal with some members expressing the view that the houses had been built to the correct height in the original plans as previously noted. A proposal was made and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and amendment sheet with the additional point as raised by the Senior Planning Officer regarding the receipt of further consultation responses.
Members continued to debate the application on issues including: that the principle of the development had been established, that the fault of this error was not that of existing residents and that any costs would be at the expense of the developer. Some Members expressed significant concern regarding the re-consultation not being received by some Members of the public and that the closing date was after the Planning Committee meeting. Further concern was raised regarding plot 3 and the gable end with some Members detailing that the retention of this was not acceptable and that further improvements were required.
RESOLVED (SIX votes FOR and FOUR votes AGAINST ) That the Committee Delegate Authority to the Joint Head of Planning to approve the most recent set of amended drawings showing a reduction in the ridge height of all three units, subject to consideration of any additional consultation responses received following expiration of the consultee response date and receipt of no further representatives raising materially new planning considerations. If these are received, then the matter will be referred back to the planning committee for further consideration.