TUESDAY 12 AUGUST 2003
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/25011/P01295/02 Demolition
of dwelling; replacement detached house, Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth
Summary
The purpose of this report is to bring Members of the Committee up to date with the latest situation in respect of the development of the abovementioned site.
To identify discrepancies between the details shown on the approved plan and the building currently under construction which cumulatively would seem to have a significant impact in terms of the street scene and the level of amenity enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring property (“Moville”); to establish the various options open to the Council, as Local Planning Authority, and to agree on a timetable that should lead to a relatively prompt but well informed decision.
The following is a brief chronology of events in connection with the development of this site this year.
The response from the owner of the neighbouring property and her continued concern about the overall size and position of the house under construction on the neighbouring site prompted a meeting at her home attended by myself and the West Team Leader on 5/8.
My initial perception when visiting the site for the first time was that the new building was oversized and out of scale with existing development in the immediate locality, largely due to the apparent significant difference in height and other properties in the vicinity, particularly the neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses. The external appearance of the building, as far as could be judged at this stage of construction, did not “equate” with the elevation shown on the approved plans, and the heavy fascia and overhanging eaves, again not illustrated on the approved plans, presented a rather cumbersome appearance from an aesthetic aspect that in lay terms could be described as “top heavy”.
At the meeting points raised by a representative on behalf of the complainant can be summarised in the following terms:
· Building is higher than approved, positioned further back on the site and not in accordance with the approved plans.
· Floor level within the new building is higher than the original bungalow.
· Amendments have been made as building progresses without reference to the Council.
· Amendments involve changes made to the construction design of the roof with the objective of increasing the floor to ceiling height at second floor level which has inevitably impacted on the external appearance of the new building.
· Street scenes produced by the developer/architect, both before and after the grant of permission, are inaccurate in terms of height of the proposed building, heights of existing properties and relationship between buildings in terms of gaps between the plot and the neighbouring properties.
Other issues were raised which were essentially civil matters, and the complainants, their representative and the MP, who was also in attendance, were advised accordingly.
Notwithstanding the decision taken by this Committee about six or seven weeks ago, it was apparent that with some justification the complainants were maintaining their objection and that there were various factors that cumulatively meant that the resulting building presently under construction was significantly different, in their view, to that shown on the approved plans. While I was unable to concur, I did indicate that there were a number of issues that needed to be properly investigated (or revisited) and resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. In the circumstances I gave the following undertaking:
· To further investigate the matter.
· 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.
· If possible, report the matter to this meeting of DCC.
Following this meeting the West Team Leader wrote to the developer/architect advising him about the meeting, the alleged inaccuracies between the approved plans and the building presently under construction and an outline of the action to be undertaken by myself. His letter, copied to the Chairman of this Committee and the local Ward Member, offered the developer/architect the following advice:
I have to advise you, therefore, once again, that any further work undertaken at the site is at the risk that the Council may consider that the discrepancies between the building as constructed and as approved, are so serious that the only means of remedying them is by taking enforcement action.
The DC Manager employed a surveyor employed by a local firm to carry out a detailed site survey.
The complainant’s representative, as requested by the DC Manager, provided a detailed written submission with supporting plan documentation giving a comprehensive analysis of the alleged inaccuracies which was followed by further information on the following day.
A letter has been received from the developer/architect in response to the advice from the West Team Leader indicating that he is aggrieved by the further investigations undertaken in the last few days but giving his consent for the independent surveyor to come onto the land in order to facilitate an accurate survey. He has provided copies of construction drawings prepared by a local supplier who erected the timber frame on site.
The independent surveyor has now provided a detailed survey drawing which comprises a measured elevational drawing of the new building and both neighbouring buildings, including the complainant’s property, a detailed site plan and supporting photographic evidence.
The information that we now have at our disposal has been evaluated and assessed by the West Team Leader and myself which has enabled me to prepare this urgent report.
It is apparent that there are 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 last reported to this Committee just over two months ago.
It is also evident that the street scene submitted by the developer/architect, after the grant of permission, is still inaccurate in a number of respects of which the most significant is the under calculation of the height of the new house and the over calculation of the height of the neighbouring semi-detached property which effectively diminishes, in illustrative terms, the difference in height between the two buildings which becomes apparent to the eye when on site and has since been confirmed by the accurate survey by the independent surveyor. The information provided by the developer/architect showed a difference in ridge height between the new house and the neighbouring property of 0.9 metre whereas the survey carried out in the last few days reveals that in real terms the difference is in the region of 1.8 metres; the view held by Officers is that such a discrepancy is significant.
In light of what we already know from the accuracy of the barely adequate submitted drawings it would not be wise, in my view, to attach too great a weight to an appraisal of the readily apparent differences between the information shown on the street scene drawings and that evident on site. Quite clearly greater weight needs to be given to the approved drawings, prepared by the developer/architect at a larger scale, and compare those with the latest survey information. This has been done and it is clear that the discrepancy in overall height, originally thought to be 0.225m is 0.80 metre (32 “).
In terms of the position of the new building on the site we have established that the overall footprint of the building is correct but when compared with the approved drawings it is clear that the building is well over one metre further back on the site and that this discrepancy projects through the site which means that the rear main wall of the new house projects beyond the footprint of the neighbouring property, further increasing any detrimental effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of that property.
Members should be aware that if a decision is taken to serve a Stop Notice there is potentially an issue of compensation if the developer/architect decided to exercise his right of appeal and was subsequently successful.
The main purpose of this report, despite outlining the various options open to the Council, is to agree an approach to dealing with the problem leading to a final decision being taken by this Committee.
It is apparent that there are significant discrepancies in terms of the overall height of the new house and its position on the site, not to mention various design issues which have not been covered in this report. It is my professional view that these differences, or unauthorised changes, cumulatively are so significant that they have resulted in a situation where the resulting building is quite different from that illustrated on the approved plans, both the detailed plans and the street scene, and had it been accurately portrayed in the submitted drawings there is a clear likelihood that the application may have been refused permission.
Members reading this report and hearing the verbal presentation will appreciate the gravity of the situation and despite the ongoing uncertainty for both the developer/architect and the occupants of the neighbouring property it would clearly be unwise to make a hasty decision and embark on any misconceived action designed to rectify the problem, if indeed that is what Members desire. In the circumstances I would like to make the following suggestion:
On the basis of the information that we now have at our disposal it is very clear to me that some kind of proportionate action is required in this particular case. If Members agree to the “plan” outlined above the developer/architect should be requested, and informed that it is in his interests to cease work on site until the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. If for any reason the developer/architect is not prepared to accept this advice and continues work on site consideration will have to be given, subject to legal advice, to the preparation and serving of an Enforcement Notice and a Stop Notice.
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 currently 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.
Development Control Manager