Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Alex Bateman, the agent. Mr Bateman explained that there was outline planning permission on the site and for the neighbouring site for 13 dwellings and a reserved matters application was submitted which was close to determination and approval but had to be withdrawn due to the option expiring. He stated that three storey dwellings were proposed on his part of the site in the top left-hand corner and, therefore, where this development is now down to single storey, three storey units were proposed in the original scheme.

Mr Bateman stated that he attended meetings with officers in the summer of 2024 prior to determination but that was postponed due to the need for ecology surveys which were required. He explained that the application was then passed to a new case officer who was less supportive of the proposal but following a meeting with officers a positive route forward was achieved, however, he is surprised to have received the recommendation for refusal.

Mr Bateman referred to the presentation screen and provided images of his client’s other developments in Doddington and the images show two schemes which have now been sold. He made the point that he is pleased to see that the officer’s report supports the proposal in principle, and he referred to the report concerning the two three-storey units of plot 7 and 8 which are to be considered to be at significant odds with the scale.

Mr Bateman added that he finds this disappointing as it was not the conclusion reached at his meeting with officers in December as he was led to believe that there were no issues. He explained that unit 9 should be a two-storey dwelling stepping down to a three storey for unit 8 and that was embraced in the revised scheme and whilst the applicant has made the changes it would appear that unit 7 now has issues which he was not made aware of and the stepping up proposal is no longer acceptable which he feels is unjust and disappointing.

Mr Bateman made reference to the location of the dwellings at the termination of the development at the northern end and added that within the reserved matters application there are three 3-storey units in the same location, however, the two single-storey dwellings are not in that location. He explained that it is disappointing that these points were not picked up in his meeting with officers in December and it was embraced that the position chosen for the higher units meant that the development stepped up as you went through the scheme.

Mr Bateman explained that there is quite a substantial amount of vegetation at the front site which hides the single-storey units, and you go through the development to the bigger dwellings behind and there was no mention of bland and featureless elevations. He added that with regards to the bungalow there were concerns raised with regards to the extension to the existing bungalow and he made the point that there was no mention with regards to the extension itself being the issue and the concern appeared to be more about how it read with the rest of the development.

Mr Bateman explained that since the plan is to extend an existing dwelling there are limitations as to what changes can be made in order to make it blend through. He added that he has looked at the render colour in order to make the dark grey through with the rest of the development and he made the point that the existing bungalow already has a first floor and therefore there is already a dorma window so the proposal is only to include one additional dorma window to the development.

Mr Bateman expressed the view that it is better to see an existing dwelling and extend it rather than to demolish and replace it for no good reason. He referred to the cohesive design and referred to the presentation screen in which he had produced a 3d image which is taken outside of unit 10 and he explained that it demonstrates how the development progresses through from the single-storey to two and then to three-storey at the back.

Mr Bateman expressed the view that he embraces the position of the taller units because there was no impact on the overlooking of neighbours, and they were not overbearing on the front of the site and opened to the countryside behind. He referred to the potential overlooking from 20 Beech Avenue and explained that the presentation screen shows a slide which is taken from the rear garden of 20 Beech Avenue and on the other side of the trees there will be a single-storey bungalow, adding that the further slide shows an image from the garden looking at the other dwellings in Beech Avenue overlooking the rear garden of 20 Beech Avenue and they are two-storeys whereas the proposal is for a bungalow.

Mr Bateman explained that the display depicts the floor plan and there are no side facing windows and the nearest windows to his boundary are two obscure windows, the bathroom and the en suite. He stated that the further images show the vegetation that is existing between unit six and he added that the variety of rooms on the eastern elevation are essentially secondary kitchen, utility and garage doors.

Mr Bateman expressed the view that he did have lengthy positive discussions with officers and the officer’s recommendation was at complete odds to that of the meeting he attended with officers.

Members asked Mr Bateman the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the presentations screen and asked whether the points relating to Unit 7 where it shows that there are ‘no issues’ and Unit 9 where it states, ‘should be a 2 storey, stepping up to three storeys for Unit 8’ are quotes taken from written communications that he has received. Mr Bateman stated that he attended a meeting with a Planning Officer, and they were his concluding points that were sent to the officer to confirm that this reflected the key points from the meeting.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned whether the notes are Mr Bateman’s notes and not notes from the officers. Mr Bateman confirmed that they are his notes.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that it would appear that the agent has been given some sort of indication that their application is positive. David Rowen stated that as the agent has confirmed the quotes that were given were in fact his notes of the meeting and not from the officer. He added that recollections may vary and the notes that the officer took from that meeting are slightly different in respect of the three-storey properties. David Rowen added that notwithstanding what may or may not have been said in terms of giving advice on the application, the information, judgements and conclusions within the officer’s report are the material issues which members need to consider and what and was not said during the application process is irrelevant to the committee’s consideration of the application.

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that applicants who attend meetings with officers should, in his opinion, not be given any indication whatsoever during the pre-planning process of whether or not the application maybe approved. David Rowen stated that officers have discussions with agents and applicants as part of a pre-application and application process and any views given within that are an officer’s view only and this is a commonly accepted practice and will not prejudice any future decision of the Council or any future recommendation that is made. He explained that sometimes instances do happen where advice is given and for whatever reason, the recommendation changes but ultimately it is not material to the determination by the Planning Committee of the application. David Rowen stated that the officer recommendation in the report is what matters to the committee and what may or may not have happened in the process of getting to that point is not something for the committee to be concerned with.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the application should be deferred in order that the two points can be redesigned.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has listened to the points that David Rowen has made, and, in her view, he is totally correct as it is nothing to do with the committee with regards to what happens when officers are working on applications and are making their professional opinions. She added that it does look quite a good application with a couple of small adjustments made and could be approved following a deferral.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the application does have a couple of anomalies that need answering and he questioned whether it is worth refusing the application or should members look to defer and bring it back with the further information.

·         Councillor Benney stated that the application needs to be determined by April 9 and, therefore, it cannot be deferred. Councillor Connor stated that a deferral could be an option if the agent would be happy to agree an extension of time. Mr Bateman confirmed that he would be content to agree an extension of time.

·         Matthew Leigh explained that his assumption is that members are looking for further information in relation to a redesign of the scheme to challenge the two reasons for refusal. He advised the committee that they are quite significant changes to the scheme and from looking at the application form, it does not appear that the applicant entered into pre-application discussions and, therefore, it would be a dangerous precedent to set to decide that the scheme was unacceptable and allow significant changes to be made. Matthew Leigh added that an applicant has the right to come and find out all the information that they need prior to applying and once an application is submitted there is no reason for officers to engage in any conversation at all. He stated that members appear to be relatively supportive of the application, however, where a small number of issues are identified then there should not be the opportunity to keep allowing further iterations of the scheme as that does have a cost implication to the Council which is in turn is shouldered and a burden on its residents and, therefore, his advice to the committee would be to determine it in its current form.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she takes on board the points made by Matthew Leigh and questioned that if the committee refuse the application can the application be resubmitted on a free go because the application would be significantly changed. Matthew Leigh explained that the opportunity for a free go submission was deleted in December 2023 by Central Government.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there is a granted application albeit out of time application for 13 dwellings which has now been reduced to nine. He added that if the committee refuse the application and the applicant then appeals that refusal, the Inspector is likely to question on what merits it has been refused and then the Council may incur costs.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it is not a material consideration, but it is a moral consideration.

·         Councillor Marks added that if the committee take the other route, officers have advised that there is officers time to be considered which has a cost implication to residents and, therefore, is a no-win situation.

·         David Rowen stated that application site that Councillor Marks had referred to was larger as it encompassed part of this application site and the property next door and, therefore, it was a different site and development. He added that the precedent that would be set with regards to unreasonable behaviour to be subject to costs would not happen. David Rowen added that ultimately officers would not be recommending a refusal to the committee if they felt that it could not be sustained at appeal and certainly there would be costs liable because of that.

·         Councillor Marks requested clarification that in the site planning history if it was double the size why would officers still tell members it was the same site. He added that when he first read the report it stated 13 dwellings and the application has come down to nine dwellings, but it would now appear that the site has been reduced in size as well, but the report does not say that.

·         David Rowen explained that it is included within the site history due to the fact that there have been dwellings permitted on part of the site is a consideration and the background section of the report does explain that permission and does explain how that permission was arranged over a slightly different site.

·         Councillor Connor stated that members have heard what the agent has said and if the committee choose to defer, would officers be happy to re-engage with the agent. David Rowen stated that if the committee choose to defer the application then officers will work with the agent who has indicated that he will be prepared to engage and come up with a mutually accepted scheme.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he would like to see the application deferred and the agent has indicated that he is happy to work with officers, which means there will be no appeal, and it will not be detrimental to any figures.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the application appears to be sound and, in his view, could be determined today. He added that with regards to the overlooking issue, in his view, when he visited the site, he does not see that there is a great deal of overlooking if indeed there is any at all. Councillor Benney added that the fact that it works its way from a single-storey to two-storeys to three-storey is based on the fact that it is a different type of application and who can state whether that is right or wrong.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he knows the site well as he is the Local Councillor, and from the design and mix of the scheme, in his view, there is no reason why the application is unacceptable. He added that there are a variety of heights in the scheme as well as similarities in the property and designs. Councillor Connor expressed the view that it is a harmonious development, a good design and a distance of over 10 metres would generally mitigate the overlooking and the non-habitable second widows can be obscure glazed to mitigate any harm.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Connor and referred to the presentation screen, making the point that this application is not the normal type of application that the committee determines. He added that this application has had a great deal of thought applied to it and it is a good solid application. Councillor Benney expressed the view that slightly more interaction with the agent and officers would put it right, but if it is a significant change, there is a good solid application in front of the committee. He referred to the presentation screen and expressed the view that the point made with regards to overlooking, the overlooking depicted is no worse than a lot of other applications that the committee have dealt with. Councillor Benney added that the overlooking in this case is going to be to a bungalow and, in his opinion, the distance looks further than 10 metres. He stated that it is a good solid application and there could have been slightly more work undertaken to conclude the application in a more favourable manner but, in his view, to refuse it would be harsh.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees that it would be harsh, and he added that the comments he has made are relevant and he feels that it is a good solid application.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there have been 8 letters of objection to the proposal and if any of those objectors had been concerned about overlooking to them they would be here at the committee today to state their case. He added that there are letters of support as well.

·         David Rowen stated that if the application is granted by the committee, officers do not have any powers to require any further amendments to be made and it would be down to the applicant to do any amendments voluntarily.

·         Councillor Marks stated if the application was deferred to give the applicant the opportunity to come back in order to make a minor change then, in his view, a deferment to make a minor change would be better. He added that if officers are advising that conditions cannot be added if the application is granted and if members want to have guarantees that those minor amendments are made then a deferral, in his opinion, would be better. David Rowen stated that it is dependent on the scale of the changes and part of the debate had been with regards to resolving the reasons for refusal which would involve the redesign of the properties so they were not three-storeys, possibly two-storey and then considering some of the overlooking issues. He added that now because of the proposal made by Councillor Benney, essentially 95% of the development is acceptable but with some slight tweaks to some windows. David Rowen added that the scope of discussions with the agent and the applicant now appears to have altered from earlier on in the debate.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with appropriate conditions delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairman.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not feel that the issue of overlooking is significant enough to warrant refusal.