Agenda item

Two bungalows to replace approved bungalows on plots 14, 15 and 16 within housing application DM/17/01683/FPA

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for two bungalows to replace approved bungalows on plots 14, 15 and 16 within housing application DM/17/01683/FPA at the site of the former Ouston County Infants School (Plots 14 and 15), Cromarty, Ouston (for copy see file of Minutes).

Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day to enable them to view the relationship between the site and the adjacent properties.

F Clarke, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application and also provided a detailed history of the development site and the development to date.  Concerns had been expressed by local residents about site levels and this application sought to address these concerns by replacing three bungalows with two.  The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that, should the application be refused, the fallback position could be that the applicant implement the existing permission for the erection of three bungalows which would have a greater impact than the proposed scheme.

Councillor D McGill, Chair of Ouston Parish Council and Councillors Batey and Wood, local Members all raised objection to the application.

Councillor McGill informed the Committee that when the infant school closed local residents were concerned about what would happen to the site and whether any properties proposed for the site would be sympathetic to the surrounding houses and would address drainage issues.  When residents were told that bungalows were proposed for the site they were still concerned about the height of the bungalows and drainage issues, but following consultation meetings, these concerns appeared to have been addressed.  Therefore, when the planning application for development on the site was submitted no local residents felt it was necessary to object.  However, local residents had not expected the bungalows on the site would be the equivalent being of a two-storey house in relation to surrounding properties.  Councillors Batey and Wood as local Members then took on the issue.  Residents and the Parish Council did not support this application.

Councillors Batey and Wood as local Members addressed the Committee to object to the application.

Although the development of bungalows on the site of the former infants school was welcomed by both themselves and the local community when it was proposed, since construction on site had commenced it had become obvious that there were serious concerns regarding the level of the site and in turn the height of the bungalows.  The site levels on the development site had changed since the demolition of the infant’s school and this had resulted in the bungalows on the site overlooking surrounding properties.  Additionally, because of the site levels and the slope of the site there were concerns about site drainage.

Mr Donnelly, resident of a neighbouring property, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  When the original application was proposed local residents believed that due to the properties being built being bungalows there would be no encroachment on existing properties and would not lead to privacy issues.

Since the original application was approved it had been brought to his attention that any plans to extend at the rear of his property in the future may be declined for planning due to the erection of this development, which was unacceptable due to the age of the existing properties in relation to the new development.

The original application which was approved was done so on an aerial view of the site with no side elevations taken into account in relation to the existing properties.  The proposed bungalows would be higher than a two storey existing property resulting in an invasion of privacy not only to bedrooms to the rear of the property but also to main garden areas.  The decision to approve the original application demonstrated complete disregard for all existing residents and incompetence on behalf of the Council’s planning department for not looking at the elevations in height in relation to the existing properties.

Land had been built up without sufficient compaction, adequate foundations or retaining walls.  Subsidence was a major concern for local residents where the development was built up so high and Mr Donnelly questioned whether the foundations had been inspected by building regulations where the land had been built up specifically for bungalow 14. 

The proposed application did not fit in with the surrounding properties that were stepped down in relation the the land heights and was overbearing due to the heights.

There was already existing drainage issues with the original site when it was formally an infant school with surface water draining into lower properties and gardens and this had worsened in gardens where the ground was saturated from the smallest of downfall.  Despite putting further drainage into our garden this had not overcome these issues which had deteriorated since building work had started on the site.

Mr S Riding of Karbon Homes addressed the Committee.  The development was a former Derwentside Homes scheme which had received fully approved planning permission.  Due to concerns which had been raised by local residents work was stopped on plots 14, 15 and 16 and a revised planning application submitted.  Resident’s meetings had been attended and there had been a number of meetings between Karbon Homes, Councillor Batey and Councillor Wood.  Fourteen concerns had been lodged through the Council’s planning portal when this application was submitted and each had been responded to, and nine had then made further responses.  Each plot was visited at its foundation stage for the purposes of insurance.

This application was as a result of residents’ concerns which had been raised and Karbon Homes would continue to work with both the County Council and Homes England on this site.  There was an existing valid planning permission for the whole site and, although not a preferred route, this could be a fallback position should this application not be approved.

Councillor Hopgood considered that residents, local Members and the Committee had been misled.  The original planning application did not mention site levels and stated that the site would be levelled.  There had been no objections to that application because this was taken in good faith and because bungalows were to be built.  She considered that it was a disgrace that local residents had been put in this position.

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that he had seen the full extent of the problem with this development and sympathised with local residents, adding that further mitigation did not right a wrong.  The original application had been approved on the information before the Committee and if this had changed then the Committee should have been made aware.

Councillor Tucker sought clarity on whether, if the application was refused, the applicant had the right to build 3 bungalows as in the original application and whether these would be built within the levels originally submitted or changed levels.

The Principal Planning Officer replied that the original application for 16 bungalows showed a change of levels.  If this application was refused the bungalows would be built to the same level as previously approved with re-arranged windows.

N Carter, Planning and Development Solicitor reminded the Committee that the application before it was for determination and that this was not a forum to dissect circumstances.  The application proposed two bungalows on existing levels rather than the three which had planning permission and the Committee should consider what was proposed and not what was desirable.  The existing planning permission was a valid permission which could still be built out and the Committee needed to have regard to this.  The foundation and stability issue was one for building control not for planning control and it had been confirmed that foundations had been inspected.

Councillor Robinson asked why, if levels had changed from the original application, there had been no planning enforcement.  This application was mitigation by building only two rather than three bungalows, and if refused, three bungalows could be built based on the original application.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the levels in this application were as in the 2017 application for 16 bungalows.

Councillor Jewell considered that the bungalows were not large but the land was higher.

Councillor Tucker sought assurance that drainage from the site was adequate.  Councillor Jewell reminded Councillor Tucker that residents had stated there had been an existing drainage problem.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the drainage system introduced to the development site would result in a net improvement in the drainage of the site.

Councillor Hopgood asked, when the top part of the site was cleared, the soil had been placed on the lower part of the site.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that levels had been checked on site by the enforcement team and these were in line with the 2017 application.

Following further discussion regarding levels on site it was moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Shield and

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to allow further discussions to take place between the applicant, planning officers, local Members and local residents.