Agenda item

Application 21/00937/VARCO - Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee approves the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 20/0088/FUL and grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered a retrospective application to vary condition 2 of planning application 20/00888/FUL at Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

 

The application was prepared for the Planning Committee meeting on 25th November 2021 but was deferred to allow officers further time to assess changes between the development as built and the submitted plans, and if necessary to allow the submission of amended plans.  These had now been received.

 

The retrospective application sought to vary condition 2 of application 20/00088/FUL which was allowed at appeal.  Some of the changes were previously sought under non-material amendment application 20/000567/NMA.  This was refused at Planning Committee as it was considered that the retrospective changes sought by the application were cumulatively not considered to be non-material in nature.

 

The retrospective amendments that are sought by this application were highlighted in paragraph 3.2 of the Officers report.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

Public Representations

 

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

 

Paul Chambers and Kevin Ruff (Objectors)

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         Both objectors referred to the previous applications and various plans that had been produced for this site, which they felt still included many inaccuracies.  They objected to the application and asked that the committee refuse and request that the applicant be encouraged to submit a full application with all previous conditions including condition 2 and that it is reviewed by the inspector.  When questioned by Members of the Committee they each explained what they believed to be the inaccuracies/concerns of the site.

 

·         Some Members felt that given the history of the site there is a complete contempt of the Committee who have a duty to protect its interests and feel that it is not acceptable in the way it has been treated.  The applicants have chosen not to carry out the original planning permission.

 

·         It was acknowledged that the Committee were being asked to regularise further breaches of the planning permission and asked what reassurance there was that this would not come back to the Committee again.  Some Members felt that it should be deferred as it was believed that not all accurate information was before the Committee, if not then refusal that the 9 changes are material.

 

·         The Interim Head of Planning stated that a retrospective application is not a reason for refusal and the applicant takes a risk when doing so.  The Committee needed to consider the changes and consider whether they are acceptable or not.

 

·         It was asked what enforcement action had been carried out on the site.  The Interim Head of Planning informed Members that the latest visit was yesterday and there had been regular visits prior to that, it was as a result of those visits that the applicant had been asked to submit this application to regularise the changes.

 

·         Some Members agreed that the accumulation of changes is material and needs to be halted, in refusing the application it would do so and hope that the Inspector would agree also.  Concerns were raised with regard to the mesh fencing around the site and preferred that this be removed to allow wildlife through.  If approved, then condition 3 would need to be made clearer.

 

·         It was considered that the 9 amendments outlined on the report make them cumulative but it was considered by some Members whether they were worthy of a refusal, it was how important they were and the impact they would make.

 

·         It was commented that the Planning Committee had refused a 4 bed and a 6 bed proposal and refused a number of retrospective changes, it was asked how the new ones would now be considered acceptable.

 

·         The Interim Head of Planning stated that assessing this application is subjective and that its retrospective, Members need to consider what was approved by the inspector and what is before the Committee now, and whether those changes are acceptable or not in terms of visual appearance.  Is the difference so much that the Committee would consider a refusal.

·         A refusal had been proposed and this was seconded on the grounds that the cumulative changes are not acceptable.  The Interim Head of Planning stated that if refused then Committee would need to demonstrate that these reasons have a visual impact and cause harm.

 

A proposal to refuse the application had been made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was refused for the reasons given as follows:

 

For – 7

Against - 4

Abstentions – 0

 

Contrary to Officer recommendation it was

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee

 

1.      refuse planning permission on the grounds of cumulative visual impact of changes to the approved plan and the impact on the green network which is contrary to policy SWDP 38 with regard to the wildlife corridor; and

 

2.      delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, subject to consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, to confirm the final wording of the above grounds and issue the Decision Notice.

 

 

Supporting documents: