Agenda item

Private garage (retrospective).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding a retrospective application for a private garage at Plot 1, Maple Crescent Garage Site, Seaham, SR7 7UT (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Mr L Hobbs, local resident, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had lived in Maple Crescent, next to the garage site, for 20 years and had suffered misery due to the failings of the Council in relation to the site. The original fence around the perimeter of his property had been destroyed as a result of anti social behaviour. Following that, he had agreed with the Council to erect a new fence 3 inches closer into his boundary. Having done that, the garage had been erected on Plot 1, and this encroached onto his property by 7 inches.

Mr Hobbs referred to the provisions of the Party Wall Act 1996, which required specific notification to be provided to neighbouring properties prior to development.

Mr Hobbs advised that prior to the erection of the garage, he had pointed out that there would be issues with the building, however his concerns were not acknowledged. The guttering was not attached correctly to the garage and instead was supported in place by Mr Hobbs’ fence. The guttering was also not positioned on a gradient as such there was no run off.

Mr Hobbs reported that he had liaised with Asset Management on the issue, and they had concluded that the land which Mr Hobbs claimed was his, was in their opinion, council owned land. Mr Hobbs disputed this, reiterated that some years earlier he had erected a new fence, 7 inches into his boundary, however that 7 inches out from his fence remained his land and as such the garage encroached onto his land.

Mr Madeley, applicant, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that in September 2010 he was successful in acquiring plot 1, Maple Crescent, and his intention was to erect a garage on the plot. In October 2010 he began erecting the garage, at which point his neighbour, Mr Hobbs, made a complaint, dissatisfied with the position of the garage. Mr Madeley had followed all proper processes and paid fees accordingly. He offered to place guttering along the garage and Mr Hobbs at that time, was satisfied with that proposal. Once the guttering was put in place, Mr Madeley reported that Mr Hobbs remained dissatisfied, but then heard nothing further from Mr Hobbs in respect of the garage for some 36 months.

Mr Madeley advised the Committee that he erected the garage exactly on plot 1 and had paperwork to evidence where the original plot was pre-garage.

The Solicitor advised the Committee as follows:

• Members were reminded that though there was clearly a boundary dispute between the parties, the role of the Committee was not to determine the dispute, as that would be classed as a private legal matter;
• In respect of the references to the Party Wall Act 1996 by Mr Hobbs, Members were advised that also was a private legal matter and not relevant to the remit of the Committee.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that on such a simple build as a garage, there was no real alternative solution to the guttering on the garage. The existing guttering served its purpose, on larger builds, guttering inset into the roof could be a solution, but that was not appropriate to such a simple structure.

Councillor A Bell acknowledged that the main issues were private legal matters, he therefore concurred with officer recommendations and, seconded by Councillor M Dixon, moved approval of the application.

Resolved: That the application be approved.