Agenda item

Variation of Condition 3 / Minor material amendment to planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2009/2504 dated 11/02/2010: Refurbishment and conversion of listed building to 12 residential units and erection of 4 two-bedroom mews dwelling houses and associated works (time extension of planning permission ref: 10622/APP/ 2006/2490 dated 11/01/2007) to allow alterations to the siting and design of the two blocks of mews housing (Retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of Condition 3 / Minor material amendment to planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2009/2504 dated 11/02/2010: Refurbishment and conversion of listed building to 12 residential units and erection of 4 two-bedroom mews dwelling houses and associated works (time extension of planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2006/2490 dated 11/01/2007) to allow alterations to the siting and design of the two blocks of mews housing (Retrospective application).

Members recalled planning and listed building applications on this site for the refurbishment and conversion of Highgrove House to provide 12 residential units and the erection of 4 two-bedroomed mews houses with associated amenity space, off-street parking and landscaping, involving the demolition of the stable building.

Permission was originally granted at the North Planning Committee meeting on the 09/01/07 (refs.10622/APP/2006/2490 and 2491) and time limit extensions were granted at its meeting on the 04/02/10 (refs. 10622/APP/2010/2504 and 2506). Works had commenced on site, including work on the mews houses with their revised siting, the subject of this application.

This application as originally submitted was for a revised siting and design of the mews housing. It has since come to light that the original plans submitted were inaccurate in terms of the siting of the adjoining properties in Kent Gardens. Accurate plans have now been submitted. Furthermore, this application seeked to up-date the details which have now been approved in connection with the conditions attached to the renewed planning permission (ref. 10622/APP/2009/2504).

It was considered that as the revised siting of the mews housing did not bring the blocks any nearer to the listed Highgrove House and the alterations to their design were not extensive and were acceptable, its setting would not be adversely affected. For similar reasons, the alterations would not materially harm the amenities of future residents on the site. In terms of the impact upon adjoining residents on Kent Gardens, it was considered that the revised siting and design of the mews housing would have a neutral impact, and with the planting of a laurel hedge on the boundary, possibly a reduced impact in terms of the existing planning permission as was approved.

A site visit was carried out by Members on Tuesday 12^th July. The application was subject to 10 letters and 2 petitions.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• Mr Larkin spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• The lead petitioner lived at lived at 27 Kent Gardens and stated that the residents were in support of the petition which objected to the intrusion that would be caused by this application.
• The petition had the support of MP Nick Hurd, Cllr Bruce Baker and local associations.
• The petitioner stated that the plans were inaccurate and the development was built on the wrong place.
• That the application was on a site that was already over developed and this was against planning guidelines. There was not enough space to develop on this site.
• The revised sitings of Block A would be 6/7metres from the nearest property. The back windows of existing properties would show buildings in direct line of sight.
• The development would reduce the quality of living for the people who were living in the area.
• The developers were illegally removing trees from the area. These were boundary trees that were originally planted to be a screen.
• The application would result in an increase in the level of noise in the area and decrease the value of their homes.
• The Council had a duty to look after residents and not looking after profit gaining developers.
• Petitioners asked that Block A be demolished and the trees that were illegally removed be replanted.
• Mrs Crowcroft spoke on behalf of the second petition that was presented to Committee.
• There were many areas of concern and the overriding concern was the future living of residents.
• A previous application in January 2007 went to Committee and this report contained incorrect information from officers.
• That had the correct positioning been shown in the original plan then the application would not have been approved.
• The plans should not be accepted as the guidelines for the minimum distance were not followed by developers.
• The petitioner stated that the residents should not suffer and their standard of living would reduce.
• The application, if approved, could result in localised flooding. This was another reason to refuse the application.
• That trees had been removed by developers without permission and they had started building without permission.
• Mrs Crowcroft asked Committee that they should consider recommending that Block A be demolished.

The agent made the following points:

• The agent stated that a lot of the objections that were put forward were put based on siting of house blocks as they were.
• The architects appointed found some mistakes, some of which were mentioned by officers, in the original plans.
• There was a need to change the floor plan to change perimeters.
• They had spoken to conservation officers and planners about anomalies, who suggested that they make another application.
• The revised plans increased the development from one side, and decreased another.
• The agents had looked at ways of mitigating the impact to neighbouring homes.
• The agent agreed that they would replant trees to make a screen.
• That the distances between the nearest existing home and house block had increased.
• That this application had set out to mitigate the problems of the original approval.
• It was stated that the original plans were made up by the Council.

Ward Councillor Catherine Dann was present and spoke as a Ward Councillor.  The following points were raised:

• Councillor Dann spoke on behalf of her Ward Councillors, including Cllr Baker.
• The petitions had highlighted several issues for the Committee to consider.
• Cllr Dann attended the site visit that was attended by Members and she found it very distressing to go into a person’s home and be able to see enormous brick wall partially built.
• Trees had been removed and this impacted residents.
• There was a lot of anger and distress locally as a result of the application.
• Petitioners had given many reasons why this application should be removed and demolished.

Members discussed the complex and difficult application. This was an existing application that the developers wished to have varied. The 2007 plans were clearly incorrect and planning permission was granted on these plans. Members wished for clarification on whether the original planning permission was legitimate.  That if Members refused the variation would the original plans still stand.

The Committee’s legal advisor stated that the question of whether the plans invalidated the permission was a matter of fact and degree and this had been found to be the position through case law and was a complex area of law. The original application and planning permission remained intact. As the errors had been identified outside of the redline plan.  The planning permission for 2007 had been implemented,  and would still stand as long as they built out to the original plans which were agreed by the Council and should be considered the fall back position should the application for variation be approved.

Other avenues were discussed by Members and Officers including any possible enforcement action and action against the original architect for providing false information. This was not for the Planning Committee to consider and could be investigated further. The Committee agreed that this error needed addressing.

The error was noted in March 2011 and a temporary stop notice was served on 14 April 2011.

Members noted the concerns of the residents with regard to this application and that the report was for a minor variation to the application. Members considered the various options available to them and they discussed the issues around flooding and boundary trees.

Members wished to confirm that the 2007 was absolutely valid before reaching a decision on this application. Members discussed the option of getting external Counsel’s opinion on the 2007 application.

It was proposed, seconded and when put to vote unanimously agreed to defer the decision pending the receipt of Counsel’s advice on the 2007 application. The questions to be asked of Counsel to be delegated to the Chairman and Labour Lead.

RESOLVED - Deferred to seek counsels opinion on the legality of the 2007 permission.