Question
Are WBC Planning decisions fair and just or are they designed to avoid enforcement issues?
Approval of 193302 was made on the 30th January 2020 which followed an enforcement officer’s visit on the 29th January 2020. Case in point: Application 182995 which was a retrospective application declined by WBC. Reason for dismissal: “Due to oppressive nature of building on 11 Drovers Way” Application 192408 an appeal to the above which was dismissed by the inspector and later withdrawn by the applicant. Reason for dismissal: “Due to oppressive nature of building on 11 Drovers Way” Application 193302 which was the same as 182995 and 192408 but with some flowers on the top. No change whatsoever to the oppressive nature of the building just with flowers on the top and approved by WBC Planning Committee the day following the Enforcement Officer’s visit.
Minutes:
Question
Are WBC Planning decisions fair and just or are they designed to avoid enforcement issues?
Approval of 193302 was made on the 30th January 2020 which followed an Enforcement Officer’s visit on the 29th January 2020. Case in point: Application 182995 which was a retrospective application declined by WBC. Reason for dismissal: “Due to oppressive nature of building on 11 Drovers Way” Application 192408 an appeal to the above which was dismissed by the inspector and later withdrawn by the applicant. Reason for dismissal: “Due to oppressive nature of building on 11 Drovers Way” Application 193302 which was the same as 182995 and 192408 but with some flowers on the top. No change whatsoever to the oppressive nature of the building just with flowers on the top and approved by WBC Planning Committee the day following the Enforcement Officer’s visit.
Answer
These applications relate to the outbuilding, as you said, in the rear of 37 Crockhamwell Road, Woodley. The building was originally erected without planning permission but following investigation from the Enforcement Team, the owner exercised his right to submit a planning application (reference no. 182995) which was refused and dismissed at appeal. However, when this was dismissed the Inspector commented that the outbuilding was not significantly different from that which could be erected under permitted development rights as you refer to (i.e. without planning permission from the Council) and stated that the scheme could be amended by additional screening and planting on the roof to soften the impact of the building on the neighbour. That report is available and everybody can read it and that was the Inspector’s report. A further application (reference no. 192408) was with a hedge between the side elevation of the building and a boundary fence but this was not suggested by the Inspector as the gap was too narrow it was considered that planting would not survive so the application was withdrawn, as you refer to.
A subsequent application for the building was submitted (reference no. 193302) and included a planting box along the edge of the roof with trailing rosemary to mitigate the impact on the neighbour. The Enforcement Officer and the Planning Officer visited the neighbour’s address in January 2020, so last month, to fully assess the impact on the neighbour and the application was subsequently approved as the proposal reflected what was suggested by the independent appeal Inspector. The Officer’s report is also available on the web for everybody to read; our Officer’s report. The objections and the Inspector’s comments and all other material considerations were taken into account.
Supplementary Question
I find it hard to understand how putting some plants on top of what is already a towering eyesore for this woman improves the situation to the extent that it overrides the previous two dismissals by the Planning Committee.
In all honesty do you really think putting some flowers along the top of what is already a towering thing in front of this woman’s house is going to improve it to the extent that you can now approve the planning?
This man’s building is higher than permitted development permits and it depends where you measure it from. From the point of view of this lady at 11 Drovers Way it is far higher than permitted development. He has built a warehouse at the bottom of her garden and you say that is fine.
Supplementary Answer
The point you made earlier about Officers I think we have got a great team of Officers but the bit we cannot control is the Inspector and the independent Inspectors have said that that scheme could have gone under permitted development with some softening and mitigation. Our team have assessed that and they have viewed it that way and approved it.
I will speak to the Enforcement Team. They did visit it was not just the Planning Officer. It was the Enforcement Team as well.