Agenda item

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 02 (approved plans) of planning permission 12/02295/FUL to amend site layout

The Planning Officer reminded Members they had deferred the application from the previous meeting to request that planning and County Highway officers discuss with the applicant the re-siting of the air source heat pump and lowering the height of the front wall to plot 1 to improve visibility.  She noted that when work commenced on site it was not in accord with the approved plans and the houses were constructed approximately 1 metre closer to Crow Lane.  SCC had been notified of the intention to build on their land.  The boundary wall to the side of plot 1 had now been removed and it was proposed to move the heat pump to the front elevation and screen it.  Work was ongoing with BT to move phone lines to a new pole so the existing one would be removed.  The Highway Authority had said that lowering of the boundary wall at the front of the property was not necessary to improve visibility.  Additional comments had been received from the Parish Council supporting the moving of the heat pump but expressing concern at the remaining pole and requesting an investigation of the drains in the lane.  Her recommendation was to approve the application. 

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that SCC had no objections to selling their land to the applicant but they required a Land Registry compliant plan to complete the sale.

A representative of Donyatt Parish Council questioned the visibility when exiting Crow Lane onto the highway and the visibility distance required.  She also felt that objectors should have been included in the negotiations with officers and the applicant following the previous Area West meeting.  She also noted that the restricted width of Crow Lane only gave limited access to the SCC tenant farmer to his land at the end of the lane.

Two members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal.  Their comments included:-

·         Uncertainty over ownership and position of drains in Crow Lane

·         The heat exchange pump had not yet been moved

·         Crow Lane had originally been 8.2m wide but was now only 4.1m wide

·         The 2012 planning application misrepresented the land ownership

·         6 out of 10 vehicles had to enter the highway to be able to see sufficiently to exit Crow Lane safely

The Agent for the applicant confirmed that lowering of the front wall of plot 1 would not affect visibility for vehicles exiting Crow Lane, the heat source pump would be relocated, the road gully underneath plot 1 had been removed and the distance from the gable of plot 1 to the property opposite was 6m.

The applicant said he had bought the site in good faith and began work in 2015 but ownership issues had been raised in 2016 which were legal matters which would shortly be resolved.  He was in constant contact with BT to move the phone wires so the pole could be removed and the Highway Authority had confirmed the front wall was compliant.

The Ward Member, Councillor Linda Vijeh felt that the land transfer should be completed before the application was determined and she questioned the photographs of the visibility splay from Crow Lane which she felt could not have been taken from a vehicle. 

The Senior Planning Lawyer confirmed that land ownership issues in this case were not material and could not be taken into account in determining the application.  She confirmed that planning was a separate statutory code; the grant of planning permission did not override the need to have the appropriate consent from the landowner.  She also confirmed that the applicant had a statutory right to make the section 73 application and the Local Planning Authority had a statutory duty to consider it and in doing so only take into account t relevant matters.  It was not a criminal offence to undertake a development which was not in accordance with the planning permission obtained and this form of application existed to remedy differences between the permission granted and that as built where it was acceptable to do so in planning terms; the law allowed this. 

The Ward Member then proposed the application be refused as the visibility splay a Crow Lane did not reflect the true picture.  There was no seconder to this proposal and therefore it fell.

Councillor Ric Pallister said the presentation photos were irrelevant and there were no planning reasons to refuse the application.  He proposed that permission be approved as recommended with conditions.  This proposal was seconded.

The Senior Planning Adviser said the Council had a duty to ensure the appropriate accuracy of documents received and this had been done.  Similarly, the Council had complied with the appropriate ownership duty in that the certificates had been completed and served on the land owner.  The Committee had asked for a separate assessment of the highway and this had been done by the Head of the Highway department who recommended approval through the standards proposed.

The proposal to approve the application was put to the vote and carried (voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions).

(voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)