Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

Ward: Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.   The site is located on the eastern side of Old Park Ridings, opposite the junction with Ridings Avenue.  The site was previously occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling with front forecourt parking area and carriage accessway, and a large rear garden; however, the dwelling has been demolished and two buildings granted planning permission under 16/05960/FUL are substantially complete.

3.   This was for the redevelopment of the site including subdivision and erection of           a new building containing a 1 x 4 bed house and a new building containing 1 x 2 bed flat and 2 x 3 bed flats with mansard roof and balconies and terraces at rear which was granted in April 2017.

4.   Whilst the development has been under construction it has come to the attention of the Council that both of the buildings have been constructed in the form of three flats, making six flats in total, contrary to the planning permission granted. This application seeks to regularise the situation.

5.   The application seeks part retrospective planning permission for the redevelopment of site by the erection of 2x 2-storey blocks of 6 self-contained flats with accommodation in roof space. This follows a recent grant of             planning permission for the redevelopment of the site including subdivision and erection of a new building containing a 1 x 4 bed dwelling and a new building containing 1 x 2 bed flat and 2 x 3 bed flats with mansard roof and balconies at rear.

6.   The new buildings already substantially build with two storey rear projections measure approximately 9 metres in height and a depth of 14 - 18.3 metres and a maximum width of 12 metres. The buildings have been largely built in accordance with the approved plans save for some minor variations.  The buildings are separated from the common boundary by 1 metre and set in from the common boundary with Nos.122b and 126 Old Park Ridings by 2 metres. Dormer windows are proposed within the front and rear roof slopes and rooflights within the side roof slopes. 8 car parking spaces and bin stores would be sited within the front garden. Cycle stores are proposed along the side boundaries. Rear gardens are proposed that would measure 355sqm per          each block.

7.   Unlike the approved application which sought to accommodate flats in one of the buildings and a house in the other, this application proposes the use of both buildings as flats. The internal arrangement of both buildings will be the same with the three bed flats sited on the ground floor and first floors whilst the two-bedroom flats would be in the loft space. All upper floor flats would have access to rear amenity space and terraces. The ground floor flats would have access directly to the rear gardens.

8.   Whilst the originally approved application is policy compliant, the unauthorised alternative that is under construction is also policy compliant.

9.    The deputation of Toby Clarke (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

10. The deputation of Michael Donegan (neighbouring resident) against the officers’ recommendation.

11. The statement of Councillor Andy Milne (Grange Ward Councillor).

12. The response of Tyrone Kousaris (Agent).

13. Members debate and questions responded to by officers’.

The discussion took two forms: one which suggested that the developer was riding roughshod over the Council and determining for themselves what was acceptable, and that had a planning application been made initially for six flats on the site, residents would have objected, and planning permission would have been refused.

The officer advised that the government advice in relation to planning and enforcement is that the grant or refusal of planning permission is not something to be applied punitively when unauthorised works takes place, as those works may indeed be acceptable in planning terms.

In this case we have a policy compliant scheme that some residents appear to like less than the previously permitted scheme, however that would not be a valid reason to refuse it.

14. Members concern in relation to the development now being out of character with the area, by nature of it being 2 blocks of flats as opposed to 1 house and 1 block of flats, the height of the development is incongruous in relation to the neighbouring property and a lack of amenity space in some of the flats.

15.  The Committee refused the officers’ recommendation: 1 vote for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that the application be Refused.

Reason: The scheme was an over development and out of character with the locality.