Agenda item

Erection of two storey extension to side and rear of property, including single storey sun room to rear, insertion of new windows in front elevation of dwelling, rebuilding of boundary walls and replacement of detached garage (part retrospective resubmission).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the erection of a two storey extension to the side and rear of the property, including a single storey sun room to rear, insertion of new windows in front elevation of dwelling, rebuilding of boundary walls and replacement of detached garage (part retrospective submission) at Beckwood, Potters Bank, Durham, DH1 3PP (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.  He also advised the Committee that one of the local residents had taken issue with how the garage floor level had been calculated in the report.  He explained that officers’ assessment was based on the built height relative to what remained of existing ground levels within the site, and this was considered to be a reasonable approach.  Regardless of this, its impact could be fully assessed because of the retrospective nature of the garage.  Planning permission had been granted for a structure that would impact to some extent on neighbours.  That impact had been considered to be at an acceptable level, and was considered to remain so with the development as constructed.

Councillor Holland, local member, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that the development had not been built to plan originally, causing distress and anger to neighbouring residents. He was concerned that there had been no monitoring on the site as to how the development was progressing and argued that the public were not equipped to be able to visualise the outcome of a build and as such relied very much on the judgement of the Planning Officers.

Mr Nesbitt, local resident, addressed the Committee. He was a neighbour of the property and had objected originally to the previous planning application.

He informed the Committee that having sought an architects opinion, it was suggested that the detached garage development was nearly 3 feet higher than planned. The building had been erected in the space of 2 weekends and there had been no policing or supervision of the build, causing a large degree of inconsistencies.

In addressing the issue of the impact on neighbouring properties, Mr Nesbitt advised that the garage was 4.8m from the dining room window of a neighbouring property and that the 6m rule had not been applied because the building was deemed not to be 2 storeys high, which he disagreed with.

He expressed deep concerns that neighbours had no rights and there was no supervisory mechanism to ensure that buildings were erected in accordance with approved plans.

Mr Anderson, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

He acknowledged that the garage was further from the boundary but advised that it had no negative impact.

In addressing the issue of the height of the building Mr Anderson informed the Committee that when the original drawings had been done on the garden there had been a lot of vegetation. Once the vegetation had been cut back the levels differed and as such the first drawings show the proposals to be level with the surrounding ground levels.

Mr Anderson agreed that at the front of the building there was a minimal deviation, but it had to be acknowledged that a lot of ground had been removed. He highlighted that the levels were exact at the rear of the build.

Measurements had been taken in conjunction with Planning and Enforcement Officers and it was concluded that the building itself was exactly the same size as detailed in the plans.

Mr Anderson stressed that the applicant had not sought to antagonise, anger or cheat the neighbours nor had the build been carried out deliberately on weekends.

In referring to the policing and supervision of the build, Mr Anderson advised that was the responsibility of the planners and the applicant had met with the planners on site at their request to implement measures to satisfy the permission.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the issues raised as follows:

• It was acknowledged that there were differing opinions as to the height of the garage floor, as explained previously.
• Supervision of the site – The responsibility lay with the applicant to build in accordance with the approved plans. Upon a report of concerns about the garage being made to the Planning Office by neighbours, an inspection of the site was conducted promptly. The Planning Office had the ability to halt works with immediate effect if necessary, however a balanced view had to be taken as to the extent of any discrepancy and the resulting impacts.  In this case, the applicant was advised to submit an application for retrospective permission, and that any continued work would be at his own risk.
• Height – The garage was in between the height of a one storey and two storey build. There was room to have head room in the upper part and the Committee were informed that the height had been assessed and was within the guidelines of the Planning Office in terms of the distances to neighbouring properties. Concerns were addressed immediately and the retrospective application followed soon after.

Councillor Charlton felt that the Planning Officers relied on builders to follow plans correctly and that responsibility for adhering to plans was as such the responsibility of the builders/developers.

Councillor Taylor, though disappointed that a retrospective application had been submitted, felt on balance that the application should be approved.

Resolved:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.