Agenda item

Details pursuant to condition 7 (Landscape Scheme) of planning permission 5761/APP/2015/4374 dated 20/01/2016 (Variation of conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 5 (Obscured Windows) of planning permission ref: 5761/APP/2012/1254 dated 05/07/2012 (Variation of conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 5 (Obscured Windows) of planning permission ref: 5761/APP/2012/1254 dated 05/07/2012 to revise the design of the proposal and allow the ground floor windows to be non-obscured (Part two storey, part single storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension to include 2 rooflights to rear, single storey side extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 front rooflights and 3 side rooflights involving demolition of existing detached garage and car port to side)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application was approved.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. The application sought approval of details pursuant to discharge condition 7 (Landscaping Scheme) relating to a planning application dated 20/01/2016. Additional correspondence objecting to the proposals had been received and had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. A key issue raised had regard to the permeability of the paving used. The Council's tree officer and landscaping officers had assessed the application and raised no objection regarding the extent of the hardscaping providing it was correctly installed and permeable. Members were advised that the second to last paragraph in the addendum was incorrect and should be disregarded. The Committee was informed that the paving works had been carried out since the application came in. The objection received related to the permeability of the paving; however, having visited the site, the Council's landscaping officer believed it to be permeable. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

A petitioner spoke on behalf of the Gateshill Residents' Association Committee in objection to the application and expressed concern regarding the health of the oak tree covered by TPO 169. Members were informed that the application was part-retrospective since the hard landscaping had already been done; however, the minimum 25% soft landscaping had yet to be completed. Permission had been granted for extensive building work at the property in 2012 and an arboricultural report had been submitted by the applicant as part of this process. A tree protection area around the TPO oak tree had been agreed. The arboricultural report had stated that the driveway would be retained or replaced by a permeable material suitable for use in a root protection area. The petitioner stated that the developer had in reality paved over 85% of the root protection area with non-permeable blocks which contravened the Council's own paving front gardens guidance sheet. Photos had previously been submitted to the Council which indicated that the blocks used were non-permeable. In addition to this, Councillors were advised that no arrangements had been made for water to be collected and directed to a permeable area; surface water was directed straight into the drains away from the tree. This not only deprived the tree of water, but also contributed to the risk of flooding further down the road.

The applicant's representative addressed the Committee and informed Members that the previous building team had not built the house in accordance with the building inspector's requirements. The current building team had therefore been requested to take over the work. The driveway had, naively, been constructed using block paving as the builders were unaware of the landscaping rules. They were subsequently made aware of the 25% soft landscaping requirement and were advised by the GRA of the need to install drainage which they did. A landscape artist was instructed to check the 25% requirement and it came out to be about 28%. Members were advised that the GRA visited the site and approved of the work.

Members requested confirmation that the paving installed was permeable and were informed that ¾ of it was. The left side of the previous drive had been solid concrete with tarmac over the top. Members enquired as to whether the applicant's representative had spoken directly to the Council's officers who visited the site and were informed that he had not.

Councillors also asked for confirmation that the work would meet the Council's definition of permeable had it been carried out as specified by the applicant's representative, and were advised that this would be the case. Members also requested clarification as to where the water was being discharged to and were informed that the water ran into a gulley which would lead to a manhole; this was deemed to be acceptable.

Members were reminded that they were being requested to discharge the condition only. If it were to transpire at a later date that the work had not been carried out in accordance with the Council's policy, this would be a matter for the enforcement team.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement stated that the plans were acceptable but required an annotation to clarify that the plans being approved were for a permeable surface. Enforcement action could subsequently be undertaken should this requirement not be adhered to. Members expressed concern regarding the longer term effect on the tree should it transpire that the landscaping work had not been carried out correctly and were reminded that this would be a separate enforcement issue. Members also enquired whether the tree had been damaged due to the concrete base which had previously been in place and were reminded that the landscape officer had raised no concerns regarding the condition of the tree.

Members commented that the officer comments regarding the enforcement report should be included in the addendum sheet and the situation should be kept under active review, particularly in view of the current hot weather being experienced.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, seven Members voted in favour with one abstention.

RESOLVED: 1) That the application be approved;

2) That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to annotate the plans as discussed to ensure the permeability of the landscaping.