Agenda item

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 of planning consent 203223 for the proposed erection of 1 no. five bedroom dwelling, following demolition of existing dwelling. Condition 2 refers to the approved details and the variation is to lower the approved site levels and lower approved drainage cover levels (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Ian Scott

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 77 to 96.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

John Staves, agent, spoke in support of the application. John stated that the reasons for the changes to the original application were due to a survey error in relation to the vertical levels, and subsequently a decision was taken to lower the building into the ground rather than increasing the ridge height. The building as designed was taller, due to a survey error, than it was originally intended to be. John added that a chartered structural engineer assessed issues in relation to retention via the lowering of the ground levels, and reassurance was provided to the neighbour and a written undertaking was provided by the applicant to undertake any retaining structure that might be needed. The mass of the house and its position on the site had not changed from the original application, and as such there was no additional impact on the street scene, which had been confirmed by officers. John requested that planning permission be granted.

Maria Gee, Ward Member, commented on the application. Maria was of the opinion that the property now looked quite out of place on the street scene, whilst adding that it appeared to have been lowered more than 225 millimetres. Maria was not convinced that property in its current design would have been approved, and questioned the decision to continue with the development despite the issue being raised with planning enforcement officers. Maria was of the opinion that residents had the right to have their boundary supported throughout the building process, and was concerned that this was not carried out for this planning application. Maria stated that highways officers had not agreed the driveway opening being wider, whilst the property was opposite double yellow lines and a junction whilst also being situated within zig-zags which appeared to contradict Wokingham Borough Council’s crossover policies. Maria added that she was very concerned that a delivery management plan had not been included for this development, as lorries had been parked within the zig-zag zone throughout development, causing a lot of stress for parents using the crossing and for drivers who did not have a lot of space to pass or turn off at the junction.

Angus Ross commented that although it was regretful to see a retrospective planning application, it did give the Committee the opportunity to see the built form of the proposals. Angus queried whether the issue relating to the supporting neighbouring boundary was a planning matter or a building control consideration. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, confirmed that this would be a civil issue between two parties and not a planning matter.

Angus Ross queried whether access to the site was any different to that proposed within the original application. Baldeep Pulahi stated that the proposals before the Committee contained no variation to the parking arrangements that were proposed within the original application, whilst highways officers had also raised no objections to the proposals.

Angus Ross queried whether a construction management plan would ordinarily be required for the construction of a single property. Baldeep Pulahi confirmed that a construction management plan would not ordinarily be a requirement for the construction of a single dwelling.

Sam Akhtar sought clarity on whether the application property had a lower ridge height than the neighbouring property. Brian Conlon, Development Management Operational Lead, confirmed that the ridge height of the application property was almost identical to that of the neighbouring property.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he was very unhappy to see a retrospective planning application of this nature, and asked that this comment be included within the minutes and fed back to the applicant, as the issue should have been identified and taken to planning officers prior to continuing with construction. Andrew queried why the increased risk of subsidence to the neighbouring property was not considered a planning matter, queried whether any restraining structures had been found necessary and if so, why this was not considered a planning matter. Angus Ross commented that retrospective planning applications put developers at risk, as they could be required to take structures down if retrospective planning permission was not subsequently granted. Brian Conlon stated that the development was substantially complete, and the issue had arisen after works had started and the site levels were found to be different. Where there were changes to ground levels or major physical alterations to what had been originally approved, planning permission would have to be sought as was the case with this application. Brian added that the Committee’s sentiment towards retrospective planning applications had been noted, however it did present an opportunity for officers and Committee Members to assess the built form and decide whether the changes were harmful. In this case, the changes to the ground levels were not deemed as harmful. Brian stated that planning dealt with the physical impact of a development on areas such as neighbours and amenity in terms of a physical design perspective, whereas the safety of construction, the types of materials used and whether it was structurally sound was a separate matter to the planning process.

Stephen Conway thanked the planning officer for his summary on what, and was not, a planning consideration. Stephen was of the opinion that there was very little difference in terms of visual appearance between this application and the application which had previously been granted planning permission, whilst noting that there were concerns raised in terms of digging down further than originally agreed. Stephen sought clarity as to whether the drive opening had been widened compared to the previous application. Baldeep Pulahi confirmed that paragraph 13 of the officer report stated that whilst the access had been widened in accordance with condition 9 of the original approval, the existing dropped crossing had not been widened.

RESOLVED That application number 220228 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 78 to 81.