Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 of application DM/15/00292/FPA to amend the design of scheme (Retrospective)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application on the variation of condition 2 of application DM/15/00292/FPA to amend the design of the scheme (retrospective) at site of former school, 28 Front Street, Staindrop.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included plans and photographs of the site.  Members had also attended a site visit to the property.

Local resident, Mrs Grice confirmed that she and her husband had met with the architect and raised two concerns with regards to the development.  The first was with regards to the height of the building and they were reassured that it would be no higher than the nearby telegraph pole.  The second issue raised was with regards to parking in the lane – she added that there had been a recent near miss involving a child as reported by the Teesdale Mercury.  However they had not objected to the proposal as they had been reassured following the meeting.

They had accepted that the windows in the roof would look back over their property, however on the original plans they were at head height and had been installed at waist level, which would reduce the amount of overlooking to their property.  Had the roof been built to the prescribed height and pitch, the impact with regards to loss of privacy would have been minimised.  This loss of privacy was confirmed by Mrs Grice who stated that workmen had waived to her from the roof windows as she washed dishes in her kitchen.  She urged Members to refuse the application and required the roof be restored to its original height and the windows of the third unit be addressed in order to eliminate any overlooking.  Mrs Grice referenced the delegated report which confirmed that permitted development rights should be removed with relation to roof extensions, to protect residential amenity and the conservation area setting.

Mr McGill spoke on behalf of the Applicant as his Agent and confirmed that before the development commenced, the site was derelict and an eyesore in the area.  Following the approval of the application in 2013, there had been no interest in the site and therefore it was considered to be unviable.  In 2015 the applicant had been careful to ensure that objections by local residents were dealt with face to face, rather than via Planning Officers and the fact that they had raised objections had confirmed that this was not the correct route to go down.  The applicant had also made other changes which he regretted.  With regards to the design of the windows, he had accepted that this needed to be rectified, however the issue of overlooking was minimal – the distances between the properties was well in excess of normal limits.  There was no impact to neighbours, particularly those in adjoining properties and he confirmed that there had been an improvement to amenity due to the demolition of part of the old buildings.  The applicant had suffered a huge amount of difficulty – some of which had been brought on by his own actions, but some were to please neighbours, however on the whole this was a positive scheme which would improve the character of the conservation area.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the objection raised was with regards to overlooking since the changes in height to the roof and the position of the windows, however the distances were well in excess of 21m – it was measured at approximately 30m and no negative impact to amenity had been identified.

With regards to the traffic management, the road was used as a cut through to the school, however there were parking spaces included within the courtyard which would limit the impact of on street parking.

Councillor Richardson was the local Member and referred to the concerns regarding the height which had been reported to the Enforcement Officer.  They had told the builders to stop, however they had continued working on the roof until a stop notice was served by the Enforcement Officer.  With reference to the Agent’s statement which described the changes as minor and also criticised the objectors, he confirmed that these were not minor changes, they were affecting the privacy of the residents who were being watched in their own back yard.  He was appalled that the plans were up for approval as the applicant had been working to a different plan than what was originally approved by the Council.  He referred to the objection from Staindrop Parish Council, of which he shared the same views.  He queried how an originally approved development could proceed with so many arbitrary changes, which had resulted in the issue of a temporary stop notice.  Referring to the current system as deficient for allowing developers to ignore planning constraints and submit a retrospective application. He suggested that this sent out the wrong signal to the majority of people who abided by the rules.  Current planning policy and law was in favour of applicants against the interests of communities, usually in favour of development.  Until stronger action was taken against breaches of the planning system and developers were made aware of the consequences of not adhering to the rules, these issues would continue. Councillor Richardson urged the Committee to consider the message that approval of the amended development would send out to other applicants.

The Planning and Development Solicitor confirmed that carrying out work without planning permission was not a criminal offence and recent Government Policy allowed Planning Committees to consider the retrospective nature of a development as a material planning consideration. 

Councillor Dixon confirmed that the applicant had agreed to change the windows and had accepted that he had made mistakes with regards to the roof.  The scheme overall was good for the area and should Members refuse the application and the viability of the scheme with regards to the costs involved in restoring the roof to its original height could jeopardise the development.

In response to a query from Councillor Davidson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the increase in height was above eaves level, however he was unaware of the reasons for the increase.  Councillor Davidson referred to the argument regarding loss of privacy and considered 30m as an acceptable distance.  In addition the rooms in question were not habitable rooms, of which 21m would be the required distance.  Although the Applicant may not have been scrupulous, the Committee had no grounds to refuse the application.

Councillor Armstrong agreed that the changes to the windows needed rectifying, however she had observed the height of the building on the site visit and it was no higher than the building opposite.  She did not consider it a significant enough reason to refuse and therefore supported the Officers recommendation.

In response to Councillor Zair the Applicant explained that the foundations had been lowered further into the ground than on the original plans and therefore had made the peak of the roof no higher than originally planned.

Councillor Clare referred to the statement from the Applicants agent and felt the language used by him with reference to the objections, was inappropriate.  Notwithstanding, had this been a new application in front of the Committee, the resolution would be to approve.  In response to a query from Councillor Clare the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that although a copy of the original delegated report was not available, the issue regarding the removal of some permitted development rights as identified by Mrs Grice was with regards to dormer windows.  Councillors Clare and Kay supported the recommendation to approve.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that the question for Members was not whether they would approve this application had it not been retrospective and suggested that Members would be setting a dangerous precedent should they recommend approval.

Councillor Davidson moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Clare.

Resolved:

That the application be approved as outlined in the report.