Agenda item

Refused planning permission with amended reasons.

PROPOSAL:

Retrospective application for an existing single storey one bedroom flat and  ancillary store to rear of Marada House.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission with amended reason 2.

Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, referred to the applicant’s submitted statement which claimed that the development was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) and local planning policies. In response, he submitted that the planning application failed to comply with the NPPF and the Council’s local planning policies.  He explained that the statement focussed on the Council's decision to issue an enforcement notice against the unauthorised building whilst failing to address any of the concerns raised in the Council's reasons for refusal. He reported on the comments and objections made by the Council’s Highways Engineer to the application following receipt of the applicant’s transport statement.  The Head of Area Planning clarified the requirements of the Council’s Waste Planning Guidance including the walking distance to the refuse storage area. He submitted that the proposed retention of the existing unit for residential use was considered unacceptable as it would additionally fail to provide acceptable waste storage for the residential unit. He then drew Members’ attention to an amendment to reason for refusal 2 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

Mr Richard Mouls, the applicant’s legal representative, submitted that the application which was a creative exercise to provide a satisfactory accommodation complied with the relevant paragraphs of NPPF.  He informed Members that the application was a consequence of incorrect advice given by the Council’s former planning enforcement officer. The representative continued that a number of the flats could be made car free. He continued that the access through a secure car park  could not be considered unsafe and that concerns about privacy could be addressed via imposition of further conditions.  In response to Members’ queries, Mr Mouls stated that the distance to the refuse storage area was a matter of judgement and would be addressed through internal management policies. He clarified that privacy issues had been addressed through partitioning and re-configuration and added that the development would provide outdoor amenity space as well as a car free development for four of the proposed flats. 

In the discussion that followed, Councillor Cummins expressed a view that the walking distance to the refuse storage area was not a significant factor and that as a third of the windows would overlook a blank wall, it would not give rise to privacy issues.  In his view, there was a considerable merit in granting planning permission for the development.

Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, advised Members that the recommendation for refusal was based on a range of issues including refuse storage, outlook and quality of accommodation, all of which fell well below required standards.  He also responded that a retrospective planning application was not an admission that what had been built would be considered satisfactory in planning terms.

The legal representative advised that the role of the Planning Committee was to make a decision on the application based on its planning merits rather than the supposed advice by an officer to the applicant.  He added that as the development had been carried out without the benefit of planning permission, the Council was within its rights to take enforcement action to address what it considered a material breach of planning control.

DECISION: Permission refused as recommended with amended reason.