Agenda item

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 the certificate of lawfulness.

Regarding the logic for granting the certificate of lawfulness, the planning permission was granted in April 2011 and that was for the demolition of the bungalow and construction of four back-to-back dwellings. All pre-commencing conditions were discharged with the exception of Condition 18, which was being considering this evening. Condition One on that planning permission required that the development would have to begin within three years of that date, which brought it up to 04 April 2014. In terms of determining whether the development with the planning permission had commenced, officers needed to evaluate, on the balance of probability, when the existing bungalow had been demolished and had it been demolished prior to 01 April 2014. This was the evidence that the applicant submitted for the certificate of lawfulness.

To clarify what was assessed when looking at certificates of lawfulness, paragraph six of the MPG stated that in the cases of applications for existing use, if a local planning authority had no evidence itself, nor any from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable, there was no good reason to refuse the application provided the applicant’s evidence alone was sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate on the balance of probability. As part of the evidence that the applicant had submitted, they submitted a statutory declaration from a local estate agent which stated that the demolition commenced on 17 March 2014. The application form also said this. A second statutory declaration from the applicant also confirmed when the site was purchased and that the sale of the site included a demolition method statement which confirmed that the demolition of the dwelling was programmed for the week commencing 17 March 2014. The demolition method statement itself was also submitted. In respect to the Council's own records and whether there was anything that was contrary to this, there were building control records from an e-mail received on 14 April 2014, which advised that the demolition had already commenced. While that date is slightly over, it did not contradict that the demolition had happened during the week of 17 March 2014. It was noted that it was not standard practise for the Council to also consult residents, but officers did post letters to a significant number of residents within the street and the adjoining street to see if anyone had any other evidence that would be contrary to the applicant’s version of events. There was nothing that did contradict it. On the balance of probability, it was determined that the bungalow was demolished before 14 April 2014, and therefore the planning permission was valid. The application being considered this evening was a variation, and it was not possible to revisit things that were already considered in the determination of the original application, only the differences.

Members referred to the appendix, which referenced a time limit deleted condition. Members asked for clarification of this. The time limit referred to the demolition having to have commenced within three years of the permission. As it had already commenced, the condition was deleted.

Members asked about Condition 18, noting other recent applications where it had been specified that future occupants could not have access to parking permits if there was a parking management scheme in the street. Members asked why this was not the case for the current application. Officers noted that the parking that would be provided as part of the application was four parking spaces for the four x two bed units, so one parking space for each dwelling. This was a minor over-provision and so was considered, on balance, acceptable. In terms of the mechanism, it would not meet the test of the condition which would ordinarily be secured through legal agreement, which had not been done at the time.

Members referred to the history of planning, noting an application approved in September 2014. Members asked what the difference was between this and the application approved in 2011. Offices clarified that the 2014 application related to the discharge of conditions of the application that was approved in 2011. In order to demonstrate that the development had been commenced, the applicant would have to have discharged the pre-commencement conditions and this was the application which came in in 2014 and was approved.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved