APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

DEMOLITION OF DWELLING; REPLACEMENT DETACHED HOUSE, EDINA, MILL ROAD, YARMOUTH

TCP/25011/P01295/02 Demolition of dwelling; replacement detached house, Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth

A report was considered as an item of urgent business at the meeting held on 12 August 2003. This was a detailed report which included information on the background to the present situation and carefully set out six possible options for action to be taken by the Council in this particular case.

Members accepted the recommendation and resolved

Having considered the issues set out in this report the view of the Council is that some kind of proportionate action is required to address the obvious discrepancies between the approved plans and the building under construction. That Members visit the site and the Committee considers the matter in detail at the next full meeting on 2/9. In the meantime the developer/architect should be strongly advised to cease work on site and all other interested parties should be advised about this decision.

Members visited the site on 22 August 2003.

This matter was first considered by the Committee, following site visits, over three months ago at the meeting held on 20 June 2003 when it was agreed that the development as constructed was within acceptable tolerances relevant to the approved plans. A letter was sent to the developer/architect by the Development Control Manager advising on the outcome of consideration by the Committee but also to advise him that Members were very concerned over “the obvious lack of professional attention to detail which led to an inaccurate plan, and his failure to recognise the significance of this serious oversight which has misled experienced Officers, elected Members and local residents into believing that the resulting building will have a lesser impact than the one being constructed on the site.”

A formal complaint by the owner/occupier of the neighbouring property and our detailed response resulted in a site meeting attended by the Development Control Manager and the former West Team Leader (Mr Boulter) held on 5 August 2003.

At the meeting on 5 August the Development Control Manager gave the following undertaking.

· To investigate the matter further.

· To obtain an independent survey to check the position of the new building in relation to the boundaries of the site and to also establish accurately the height of the building to eaves and to ridge level and compare that with the height of the complainant’s semi-detached property.

· To further discuss the matter with the developer/architect and obtain from him any information that he may have to clarify the position and/or disprove the allegations being made by the complainant (i.e. the owner occupiers of the neighbouring property).

· To report the matter to the Development Control Committee.

A local surveyor employed by the Council to investigate this particular matter has provided a detailed survey drawing which comprises a measured elevational drawing of the new building and both neighbouring properties, including the complainant’s property, a detailed site plan and supporting photographic evidence. It is understood that the developer/architect was present on site when the surveyor carried out his work.

The conclusion reached by the Development Control Manager and the former West Team Leader was that it was apparent there were discrepancies between the approved plans and the building under construction on the site in terms of the overall height of the new house and its position on the site in relation to the boundaries and the neighbouring property that go beyond what we understood to be the position when the matter was first reported to the Committee over three months ago.

Based on the information provided by the surveyor, Officers maintain that in their view there is a discrepancy in the overall height of the new building, originally thought to be 0.225m, but now discovered to be in the region of 0.800m.

The developer/architect was interviewed by the Development Control Manager and the former West Team Leader at Seaclose offices on 18 August 2003; the meeting took place at his request.

A detailed file note was prepared after this meeting. The key issues can be summarised in the following terms.

• Developer/architect claims that Council have incorrectly calculated the discrepancy and failed to give due regard to the changes in ground levels, finished floor levels, tiling of roof, etc., and he now claims that the discrepancy is 0.224m, which is just 0.019m higher than when the building was surveyed just over three months ago and that, in his opinion, this is attributable to the laying of the roof tiles.

• Developer/architect states that the new building is on the original footprint of the former bungalow. While Officers accept this may be correct, it nevertheless does not accord with the approved drawings, inasmuch as the building could be up to a metre or more further away from the front boundary and that this discrepancy extended throughout the structure means that there is an increase in the impact on the amenities previously enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties.

• Developer/architect responded by indicating that there is a note on the approved drawing to the effect that the new building will be on the footprint of the former bungalow and Officers stated that the ground floor plan and/or site plan was clearly inaccurate and, in any case, failed to accurately plot on the plan the position of either of the neighbouring buildings. It was agreed, however, that this issue was going to be extremely difficult to prove or disprove following the demolition of the former bungalow and the partially completed redevelopment of the site.

• Officers indicated to the developer/architect that the site visit by Members, at that time due to take place on 22/8, would be purely a fact finding exercise and that there was no intention to make a decision in connection with any prescriptive action on that particular day.

• Developer/architect requested (or insisted) that he and his advisers should have an opportunity to input into the process before the finalisation of the report and the matter being considered by this Committee.

The Development Control Manager has had no further contact with the developer/architect since that date.

Following on from the meeting with the developer/architect he has provided colour Photostat copies of photographs taken shortly after development commenced on site, a copy of a detailed cross section which purports to be the timber frame as constructed, and a copy of a letter to the developer/architect from the person responsible for initial groundworks on the project who states:

When we constructed the foundation slab to new house we made the level of new finish floor as near as possible to that of existing building and also of existing ground levels.

There was an existing concrete path along the left hand side of the site with the existing manhole covers in. The path was level and this was used as our datum. The path led to a small area of concrete at rear, which was also level. The path was removed and we excavated some 400mm to enable construction of floor slab etc.

The path sloped quite steeply from front of building down to road level. We removed substantial amounts of concrete and soil etc from front garden to reduce levels to enable access to site for lorries etc. On completion of our works the whole site was left at reduced levels.

In similar terms the contractor responsible for the demolition of the former bungalow has also written to provide background information stating:

…. When we demolished the then existing building, the ground floor of the original house, was the same level as the concrete path running around the edge of the building. The concrete path around the edge of the house was level. The path sloped from the front of the building down to the road level. There was a small retaining wall at the front of the site, which we removed. The front garden was substantially higher than the road. The front garden was covered with a layer of concrete with paving slab on top of that.

The developer/architect has written to the former West Team Leader making a number of points.

· The building “has now been approved by the Planning Department no less than three times”.

· It is alleged Planning/Enforcement Officers have been witnessed attempting to establish the height of the building on five occasions.

· He has been helpful throughout the investigations.

· He has been advised on two occasions that he could continue work on the site.

· He itemises the work that has taken place on site since 20/6.

· He itemises the commitment that he has made in terms of purchasing insulation for the building, purchasing bricks, committed to purchasing timber cladding, required preparation of round windows and committed to the purchase of a staircase which is being made.

A Planning Consultant acting on behalf of the developer/architect has submitted written representations in support of his client in the position that he currently finds himself in; his letter is attached to this report. The main points can be summarised in the following terms.

• The concern of his client at the “contradictions and uncertainties” in connection with the manner in which the Council have handled the case.

• Are the discrepancies “so significant as to require planning permission?”

• Would it be expedient for the Council to exercise its discretion to initiate enforcement procedures.

• If an amended application was submitted would planning permission still be granted?

• Does the advice provided by the Development Control Manager after the meeting held on 20 June estop the Council from taking any further action.