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.
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
There were no late papers
The information was presented as set out
by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
The following people had registered to
speak on the application:
Paul Chambers and Kevin Ruff
Key Points of Debate
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
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
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
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
RESOLVED: That the
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;
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.