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 dwellinghouses 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

DEFERRED ON 14th July 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

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. This item had been deferred to obtain legal opinion from Counsel.

This application as originally submitted was for a revised siting and design of the mews housing. It had 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 had now been submitted. Furthermore, this application seeked to up-date the details which had 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 approved. The application was recommended for approval.

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 Andrew Larkin spoke on behalf of the petition submitted to the Council.
• He believed the wrong questions were asked by officers when obtaining legal opinion.
• That commonsense had been lost, and he hoped that the Committee would see sense and did not approve the application.
• The petitioner stated that Councillors had visited the site themselves and asked whether the Council had the power to reject the 2007 permission granted.
• That if the Council could today give retrospective planning then they should have the power to take away planning permission.
• The petitioners felt the development should be demolished.
• Mr Larkin quoted Councillors who had previously expressed their dissatisfaction at the approval of the original plans. 
• He stated that if the Council did not make a mistake originally then there would not be a need to be present to make a decision on the application at the meeting.
• He hoped that the Council had the strength, will and power to reject the application.
• The petitioner stated that if the Council could not be governed by its own rules then what hope was there for residents.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• Mr Brian Meyer spoke on behalf of the application.
• He referred to Counsel’s opinion that was obtained and contained in the officer’s report to Committee. That the implemented planning was valid and was unlikely to be quashed by court.
• If permission was not granted today then the applicant had the option to go to appeal, alternatively demolish what had been built and build it as per the original application which was agreed.
• The applicant stated that the application that was being considered by Committee was better for residents than the previous.

Members believed that they had asked the correct questions to Counsel, and Members had the QC’s opinion which they had to take into consideration. The guidance that they had received was very clear. The 2007 permission was capable of being implemented and could not be removed.

Officers confirmed that Counsels opinion which was sought by the Council. It was wrong to imply that the original planning permission breached Council policy.

Members considered whether what was being proposed by the developer was better, the same, or worse than the original application. Despite any errors that could have been made the 2007 application could not be overturned and was not consideration for Members at the meeting.

Members felt empathy for residents and felt frustrated for them, but they stressed that if they were to refuse permission on the application for consideration then the developers would have the option to go back to the 2007 application.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority of 5 in favour and 2 against. Cllrs’ Payne and Melvin recorded their vote against the application.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.