Agenda item

Application Proposal: Section 73A application to vary condition 1 (approved plans) of planning application 17/04047/S73A to amend Plot 1 from a single-storey bungalow to a 2-storey dwelling

The Specialist Officer – Planning, presented her report to Members. She explained that there was an ongoing appeal for this site on the grounds of non-determination and that she wished to have the Committee’s views for how the appeal should be dealt with.  She also explained that she had received an additional letter of objection, however it raised no new planning issues. However, she summarised the points of the letter to include; reduction in the value of adjoining dwellings, will only be 4 meters from existing dwelling, there is no reason to amend the bungalow to a 2-storey dwelling and will tower over existing bungalows.

She explained that the application dealt with plot 1 of the development and seeks approval for a bungalow to become a 2-storey dwellinghouse. She added that plots 2 and 3 already had permission to become 2-storey houses and further advised that permission for plot 1 to become a 2-storey dwelling had previously been allowed by the Council. However, the previous application for plot 1 sought to amend the wrong planning permission. Therefore the application now being considered was an application to correct a technical error made by the applicant. 

She explained to members that the principle of amending the bungalows to dwellinghouses on the site had all been agreed previously, and recommended that the appeal should be recommended for approval.

Members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included,

·         A legal battle over land to the rear of 28 Bowden Road had only recently been resolved. This ruled that the garden fence in plot 1 couldn’t be moved. I had been intended that the fence would be moved further into the garden of 28 Bowden Road. Plot 1 shown to be built on land which is outside the land ownership of the applicant.

·         There is a covenant was added to the land to ensure that only 1 dwelling could be built within plot 1.

·         The two-storey dwelling will overlook existing bungalows and gardens. Light and privacy will be lost.

·         The development was designed with houses one side and bungalows on the other.

·         Bungalows are precious as there is a shortage of bungalows.

·         There will be more cars parking on the road as houses are larger and likely to have more cars.

·         The development should be built as approved.

·         This is manipulation of the system.

·         This should not have been approved by the Regulation Committee. 

The Specialist Officer – Planning, confirmed that all applications for amendments submitted to the Planning Department needed to be considered. She also advised that any covenants on the land were legal issues outside of planning control. She added that there is always a risk when buying dwellings off plan and confirmed that there had been no change to the red line since the first application was submitted in 2009.

She also explained that there was no specific mention of bungalows in the SSDC Local Plan and advised that although she was aware of the legal issues in relation to boundaries, these were outside of planning legislation. Once resolved, they might prove that plot 1 cannot be built, however as it is a private matter, the planning application still needed to be determined.

She clarified that although there had been mention of plot 3 from local objectors, plot 3 had been given permission to change the bungalow to a dwellinghouse.

Councillor Hayward Burt, Ward Member, explained that two applications to change bungalows to houses on this site have been refused. He explained that he still did not support this change. He was relieved to see that the boundary issue had been resolved.

He referred to condition 4 which was detailed on the report and explained that the footpaths and roads within the site had not been completed. He also pointed out that there were drainage issues on the site. He did not support this application.

Councillor William Wallace, also Ward Member, agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hayward Burt. He added that the goal posts have been moved for the residents which were already living in homes on this development. He questioned whether there was a time limit for considering amendments like this.

In response to this question, the Specialist Officer – Planning advised that there was no time limit. She also explained that there was no time limit for completion of roads and footpaths etc. providing that access to property has been provided.

During the discussion, members commented that this planning application may have not been refused should the number of houses and bungalows been clear in the first place.  One member commented that he could recall the design of this development and that the bungalows were the key feature of this development.

One member commented that there were overlooking issues. Another member questioned whether permission could be given when the red line plan included land which was not owned by the applicant.

The Senior Legal Advisor advised members that the boundary issues, which had recently been resolved, was a private legal issue and should not be considered as part of the planning application. She clarified that you do not need to be the owner of the land to obtain planning permission, however if the land is outside of the ownership of the applicant, then he would not be able to build on this land without the landowners consent. This was an accepted principle in planning and did not amount to a reason for refusal. 

In response to a question from members, the Lead Specialist – Planning advised that policies encouraged a mixture of property types and that there were no specific policies relating to bungalows within the SSDC Local Plan.

It was proposed that the planning appeal should be recommended for refusal as there were overlooking issues for existing dwellings, specifically plot 2.

The Lead Specialist – Planning clarified the position of windows on the dwellinghouse proposed on plot 1.

It was proposed that the planning appeal should be recommended for approval, however this was not seconded.

The first proposal to refuse the planning application was seconded, on the basis of unacceptable overlooking of the three surrounding residential properties (Nos 28 and 30 Bowden Road and Plot 2 within the development).

Before the vote was taken, members queried whether the lack of car parking could be added as a reason to refuse the application. In response to this, the Lead Specialist – Planning advised that as this application had previously been approved, it would be difficult to defend this decision now that an appeal had been submitted.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in support, 2 against with 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  that planning appeal 19/00184/S73A be recommended for refusal on the on the basis of unacceptable overlooking of the three surrounding residential properties (Nos 28 and 30 Bowden Road and Plot 2 within the development).

(voting: 8 votes in support, 2 against and 4 abstentions)