APPENDIX B
URGENT ITEM
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 20 JUNE 2003
TCP/25011/P1295/02 Demolition of dwelling;
replacement detached house, Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth, I W
Reason for Committee
Consideration
Councillor Mrs Butchers, as local Member, has asked that the Development Control Committee be advised of the situation regarding this site. As the building works have been continuing, since 6 June, it is essential that Members consider the issues at the earliest opportunity, i.e. the Development Control Committee meeting on 20 June.
The proposal involved the demolition of a bungalow, located on a narrow plot between the Guide and Scout Headquarters and a pair of semi-detached dwellings in Mill Road and replacing it with a detached house.
Following statutory publicity, Yarmouth Town Council notified on the 20 August 2002 that they raised no objection. Two letters were received from residents of Mill Road objecting to the proposal on grounds of loss of light, overlooking/loss of privacy, balcony on rear elevation and inadequate statutory publicity. As a result of these letters, revised plans were obtained from the architect, which, amongst other things, reduced the size of windows in the south elevation.
Following consultation with the local Member (Councillor Mrs Butchers)
and the Chairman of the Development Control Committee (Councillor Mrs Miller),
the application was “signed off” under Part 1B of the delegation agreement on 7
January 2003. The decision notice was
issued on the 9 January 2003. A copy of
the Case Officer’s justification for decision is attached to this report at
annexe A.
On the 1 June, a letter was received from the neighbouring property
occupier, following a phone conversation with the Enforcement Officer (Ms
Gooch) that the development under construction on the adjoining plot was
unacceptable due to loss of light within the property. She also alleged that although this issue
had been raised prior to the determination of the application, no one visited
the property to assess the likely impact.
She had seen the plans, but found it difficult to imagine the size of
the proposed house. Although the house
was proposed to be built on the original footprint of the former bungalow, it
extends about 5 feet beyond the back wall of that bungalow (excluding the
conservatory). She does not ask that
the house is pulled down but questions the foresight and procedure of the
original Planning Officer and asks for advice.
On the 4 June 2003, the Enforcement Officer visited the site and took
front and side elevation measurements to evaluate the position of the building
and found them to be correct and in accordance with the approved plans. With some assistance, the Enforcement
Officer used methods available at the time, and measured the height of the
building to apex as 8.15 metres. On
return to the office, she discussed the issue with the Case Officer who
considered that if the height of the dwelling as built was “significantly”
higher than the approved height (7.4 metres, ground to ridge, scaled from the
approved revised plan) then a new application would be likely to be refused. She then contacted the applicant/agent and
advised that he should stop work on the building until the matter is resolved.
The applicant/architect promptly brought in a letter confirming his
measurements of the height of the building (together with a scaled cross
section and photographs) which indicated his opinion that the discrepancy in
height between as approved and as built was only 225mm. Because this was significantly different
from the measurements taken by the Enforcement Officer on the previous day, she
met the Case Officer on site that afternoon and a tape measure was run from the
apex of the roof down to slab level, giving a measurement of 7.75 metres which,
bearing in mind roofing material would have to be added, gave a difference in
height of 225mm which accords with the applicant/architect’s own
calculation. He attributed this
difference in his letter to 75 mm extra on the size of the joists for each
floor and the roof.
It was concluded that a difference of this nature would be acceptable,
within the normal parameters of approved plans but that it did not explain the
difference in height between the building as constructed and the property next
door.
The street scene submitted with the application (copy attached at annex B) showed quite clearly that the height of the proposed new building would be 5 metres to eaves level and 7.5 metres to ridge. These heights clearly lined through with the eave and ridge heights of the adjoining property to the south. However, despite the agreement that the height of the new building as constructed was within acceptable tolerances, the eaves level appeared some 1 metre above the eaves level of the adjoining property and the ridge level, by comparison, also 1 metre above the ridge level of that property.
When this point was put to the applicant/architect, he indicated that he had had difficulties in assessing the height of the adjoining property, because its upper floor was rendered and the traditional method (counting brick courses) of assessing height of buildings could only be carried out as far as the ground floor was concerned. Therefore, although he had signed the section of the application form to confirm that the block plan and detailed plans submitted with the application are based on the results of a detailed site survey which he had undertaken, the applicant/architect is of the view that the Council should not have relied on the submitted street scene to assess the impact of the dwelling in relation to its neighbours. It should be noted that the street scene is described as being at a scale of 1:200 and that there is no indication given that the Local Planning Authority should not rely upon it in their evaluation of the scheme. However, the applicant/agent has now indicated that, with the scaffolding around his property in place, it has been possible to produce a more accurate street scene and this is attached at annex C, together with the architect/agent’s letter of the 8 June 2003 setting out his views on the situation and how it arose.
These issues, together with the submitted plans and photographs taken
during the site visit by Officers were discussed with the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman of the Development Control Committee, the local Member, the Head
of Planning Services, the Development Control Manager, the Council’s Solicitor
and the Development Control Team Leaders at the Committee Briefing meeting held
on 6 June. It was agreed that, on all
the evidence available, the siting of the dwelling within the plot and its
distances from the plot boundaries were in accordance with the approved
plans. The height of the dwelling, as
measured on site by the Enforcement Officer, the Case Officer and the
architect/applicant was some 225mm too high.
It was agreed that a minor discrepancy of this order would not be
sufficient to require the submission of amended plans and there was no
enforcement action which the Local Planning Authority could reasonably
take. It was agreed that the inaccuracy
of the originally submitted street scene was disappointing but that it would
not have been possible for Officers to identify that discrepancy, by eye,
during site visit.
The applicant/agent was therefore informed by telephone on the same
afternoon, that Officers and Members had reached the conclusion that there were
no sustainable grounds for enforcement action against him and that the works
could continue, in accordance with the approved plans for the development. He had stopped work following an earlier
visit to the site.
Since that time, the neighbour has spoken to the local Member and
indicated a desire to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, and the
matter, I understand, has been or will be raised at Yarmouth Town Council. The neighbour has also spoken to Mr Boulter
and been advised to go through the Council’s own complaints procedure, before
lodging any complaint with the Ombudsman.
She has been sent the Council’s complaint form. As a result of these developments, the local
Member has asked that the Development Control Committee is made aware of the
issues involved, hence this report.
Potential for complaint to the Ombudsman, which could result in compensation, if maladministration causing injustice is found.
1.
To agree that
the development is constructed within acceptable tolerances relative to the
approved plans and note the action taken by Members and Officers to date.
2.
To agree that
the building is constructed within acceptable tolerances relative to the
approved plans and seek to negotiate a reduction in its height to accord with
the originally submitted street scene.
It is clear that the concerns of the objectors were considered during the determination of the application but were not of sufficient weight to warrant refusing permission. None of the objectors raised issue with the height of the proposed development and the Town Council had no objection.
The building, although 225mm higher than the approved drawing, is, I consider, constructed within acceptable parameters, based on the approved plans. A difference of 225mm (about 9 ins) would not be perceptible and would not justify any call for a new application or the issue of an Enforcement Notice requiring a reduction in height to the approved level.
The difference in perception of the development comes by comparison with
the originally submitted street scene and is due to the fact that the eaves and
ridge level of the new building are some 1 metre above those of the adjoining
property. The revised street scene
submitted by the applicant/architect shows that there is a variety of house
types, frontages, heights, scale and mass within Mill Road and leads me to
conclude that had the originally submitted street scene been correct, there
would still have been no basis in terms of the general amenity of the area, on
which to refuse the application.
I can therefore see no justification to seek to secure a reduction in
height of the building as constructed to equate more closely to that of the
adjoining property to the south, either by negotiation or through enforcement
proceedings. Whilst it would be within
the legal powers of the Council to revoke the consent and secure the demolition
of the building, I can see no planning justification whatsoever to do this. Similarly, I can see no justification in
requiring the submission of a further full planning application simply to
consider the 225mm increase in height of the building. Advice has been obtained from the Legal
Services Manager, and such actions to address a height difference of 225mm
would be considered disproportionate under Human Rights legislation.
In coming to the recommendation to agree that the development is in accordance with the approved plans and note the actions taken so far, considerations have been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention of Human Rights. All relevant matters were considered in the decision to approve the application and the additional height of the development (225mm) above the approved plan is not so significant as to warrant further action. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council as expressed through the Unitary Development Plan and is in the wider public interest.
To agree that the development is constructed
within acceptable tolerances relative to the approved plans and note the action
taken by Members and Officers to date.
Head of Planning Services