Agenda item

Enforcement Action in relation to Langside, Larkswood Rise, Pinner.

Officers introduced the report, which related to an alleged breach of planning control at a property called Langside in Larkswood Rise, Pinner.

Two planning permissions had been granted in relation to the premises earlier in 2015. A number of complaints had been received, with the main concerns being that the development was higher than approved and that it did not bear any resemblance to the approved plans.

Officers advised that a planning officer had measured the height of the building and found that the height was correct. It was acknowledged that the development did not reflect any of the approved plans in their entirety. However, each element of the development was in accordance with at least one of the plans. It was noted that the applicant was entitled to submit multiple plans and then build elements of each at different times. Officers were, therefore, recommending that the enforcement investigation be ceased and no further action taken on the basis that there was no breach of planning control at Langside.

The Committee questioned whether the plan would be considered acceptable if the application had been submitted as a single planning application rather than as separate applications. Officers advised that each application was considered to be acceptable individually, but that in combination, they would amount to over development.

Members asked whether there had been previous discussion at Committee about compliance of the previous applications in relation to Planning Policy BE13 (excessive bulk). Officers confirmed that there had not been discussion as the applications had been determined by officers under delegated authority, and therefore, had not gone to Committee.

Members also expressed concern that the plans they had considered at a previous meeting had not been consistent with the construction that had taken place at the premises. It was requested that steps be taken to avoid this in the future.

The legal advisor confirmed that, in order for enforcement action to be taken, there needed to be evidence that the development was unacceptable in planning terms. It also needed to be expedient for enforcement activity to be undertaken. The Chairman noted that there was a higher threshold for enforcement activity than there was for refusal of an application.

Some Members expressed regret that there were no planning grounds for enforcement action to be taken. 

The recommendation to agree that the enforcement investigation be closed was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

The Chairman proposed that the Committee agree to make the officer reports and the minutes for the item public. This was because there was no longer a need to keep the item confidential as no enforcement action was to be taken. It was also noted that   there had been a significant public interest in the planning applications at the property.

RESOLVED: That:

1.    The enforcement investigation be closed as per the officer recommendation.

2.    The officer report and associated minutes be released into the public domain.