Agenda item

Public Participation

David Tombleson spoke in objection to the application.

Colin Tagg spoke in objection to the application.

Neil Brawn spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Grist, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Pratt, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Jeff Ligo, Chairman of Bratton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Steven Vellance, Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted for a variation to condition 14 of planning permission W/12/02101/S73 to allow for minor material alterations and additions to the previously approved dwelling that had bene partially constructed on site. Key issues included the principle of the development, reflecting upon the minor material changes that had been undertaken and comparing these with what had been previously approved in 2012. 

The officer explained why the planning team had registered and processed the application under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act; and had, after visiting the site, took physical measurements of the building to firstly obtain accurate plans from the applicant; and secondly, to allow officers to make a full and proper assessment of the modifications made and proposed on the site.  

The officer advised members of the receipt of two late public representations which were verbally reported along with an officer response to each point raised.

The committee was advised of the inspections carried out by the Council’s conservation officer who, in addition to the case officer, made a site inspection and reported that the works which had been undertaken (included within the submitted regularised retrospective application submission) was acceptable in terms of adopted and legislative standards and policies.  In addition to heritage asset and planning policy interests, expert input was obtained in terms of highway safety and flood risk impacts, and the responses were also reported.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Detailed questions were asked about the roofing material used on the ‘as built’ house compared to what was previously approved; and about the extent of the physical amendments made to the site and house compared to the consented scheme.

Officers reported the physical measurements which had been taken on site and with the fixed datum point of Mill Lane that had not changed since 2012 officers reported that the ‘as built’ house had a lower ridgeline compared to what was previously consented. The fenestration changes were reported as being minor material changes the s73 application could adequately appraise as well as the minor amendments made to the site. It was also reported that under the separate building arrant process, the Council’s building control surveyors had visited the site and had checked drawings and had found them to be accurate.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A statement from the local unitary member, Councillor Jerry Wickham, citing opposition to the application was presented by Councillor Jonathon Seed, which included an appraisal of the site history and the different house that had been built retrospectively and also referenced detrimental impacts the ‘as built’ house has, to which local residents raised representation about.

A debate followed, which led to further questions being asked of officers, with some members expressing concern about the retrospective nature of the application and the extent of the changes that had been undertaken and questioned whether a s73 application was the appropriate type of application.  At the request of the committee chairman, the Council’s planning lawyer was asked whether or not the application could be determined under a s73 application. In response, the committee was advised that it was a matter of planning judgement to what degree the material changes were minor and that the committee was being advised in this case that the ‘as built’ house was subject to minor material changes - which planning officers had verbally explained during the presentation and through responding to member’s technical questions.

The committee was then advised that if  members were convinced the ‘as built’ house constituted more than minor material amendments from the approved drawings in the original planning permission it would amount to development without permission.  Members would therefore not be able to vary the original planning permission by way of a s73 planning application. In these circumstances, it was within the committee’s remit to defer the application and to seek the applicant to resubmit a full planning application.

During debate a motion to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Andrew Davis, seconded by Councillor Trevor Carbin. At the conclusion of discussion, it was,

Resolved

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 Following this item Councillor Christopher Newbury left the meeting at 1755. Councillor Jonathon Seed thereafter took over as Chairman.