Issue - meetings

Variation of Condition 5 (approved plans) and removal of Condition 18 (resident parking permit restrictions) of planning permission ref. 65680/APP/2011/36 dated 04-04-2011 for 'Erection of 4 two-bedroom back to back two storey dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of new vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling' for minor material amendments to the internal and external fabric of the building.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be approved

Officers introduced the application. It was important to note that the assessment of the proposal placed before Members for determination was restricted to the proposed amendments and not matters which had already been benefited from planning consent.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The petitioner noted the 2011 application (65680/APP/2011/36)
• The current application reference was 65680/APP/2023/2256
• It was disappointing that only the two conditions were being considered and not the full application
• Residents had a lot of interest in this application given the history of the site
• The site was derelict and untouched
• One of the key points was that the parking management scheme should not be negatively affected

Councillor Steve Tuckwell addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:

• It was fully understood that the current application was on the basis of determining the variation of Condition 5 and the removal of Condition 18 from the parent planning permission that was granted in April 2011
• The Committee can only determine what was presented to it
• However, points needed to be raised for public record and for clarification
• Residents believed that their opportunity to raise legitimate concerns using the petitions process about the overall application has been denied. For this reason, planning officers were asked to outline the following points:
  • What was the underpinning logic of granting the Certificate of Lawful Development on the 17 July 2024?
  • What weight was applied to the planning application document contained within today's application that expressly referenced that the development of the site did not commence until the 01 May 2014, one month after the 2011 planning consent expired?
  • Given that this petition was submitted by residents in September 2023 expressing concern over the overall development, why was the Certificate of Lawful Development granted before the matter was brought before this Committee this evening?
• Residents believed that the original planning application had expired and that the new application with the full adherence to updated planning policies, should have been submitted for full determination
• Whilst the Committee can only determine the variation and removal of conditions, not having the ability to determine the full application render this application devoid of the updated and refreshed planning policies, such as the provision of family homes and electric charging points, air quality and the excessive size of the dropped curb

Officers advised that they accepted an application for a certificate of lawfulness before determining the current application because the more robust way to address the extent of the original application was for the applicant to formalise and submit an application for officers to consider all the information. This was done and granted in July 2024.

In terms of the weight given to this current application documents, the application form did state that the dwelling had been demolished in May 2014. This was presumed to be an error and it was corrected to the date of 01 April 2014 and that was submitted on 01 July 2023. The applicant had submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29