Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented this application. This application  was submitted under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a Minor Material Amendment to allow for an amendment of Condition (2) relating to the construction of 2, two-storey, two bedroom houses at the rear of 97 Honor Oak Park, SE23. The application had received 8 objections.

The proposed amendment was to allow siting of House B closer to the western boundary; repositioning of two dormers to 'House A'; the addition of front door canopies; insertion of a ground floor flank window to 'House A'; formation of circular opening at first floor; installation of automated sliding gate to the rear; erection of fence between new dwellings and main building; resiting of parking bays; relocation of bin store and cycle store; and additional paving measures. The houses were unoccupied at this time.

The committee report of 2011 advised that the footprint of both house would be the same- 9.3m in length and 5.2m in width. In comparison, the house A footprint had been measured as 9.4m in length and 5.4m wide. House B measured at 9.57m in length and 5.4m wide, both houses being larger than the approved measurements. The houses were also built slightly closer to the boundary.

The key planning considerations are the design and appearance of works undertaken, and those proposed; whether the works represent a significant change from the approved scheme; residential amenity; standard of accommodation; landscaping proposals.

The development was considered to be acceptable in its merits. The changes to the construction are not considered significantly different to those proposed. Therefore it was recommended by officers to grant permission, subject to the appropriate planning conditions.

Councillor Paschoud asked about the previous appeal of this application. The planning officer clarified that the application went to Committee in 2011 with the recommendation to approve. It was refused for design and scale reasons. The applicants appealed and the appeal was upheld in 2016 with conditions attached to the planning consent.

The applicant then spoke on the proposed amendments. He stated the following:

His parents bought the house as a family home in 1971 as an already dilapidated building with the intention of restoring the Victorian structure back to its original form and enhancing the accommodation. His parents worked hard to restore the home for future generations. The applicant undertook the task of restoring the house and converting it to 6 apartments and building the two new house at the rear of the garden.

The siting of House B is closer to the western boundary because it was discovered that an ancient sewer had been directed across the development, cutting across the proposed position of House B. the decision was taken to move the site of House B a distance away from the sewer but still far enough away from the western boundary so as not to disturb the sewer.

The dormer windows on the ground floor and the flank window of House A are positioned exactly as they were in the original but refused planning application as discussed by the Committee in 2011. The architect at the time was sick so this may have affected the slight changes in outcomes. In the 2011 report, the planning officer stated that both dwellings would be positioned so as not to compromise the privacy of the neighbouring residents. The proposed dormers would also be positioned to not overlook neighbouring occupiers.

When asked why the houses’ footprints were larger than intended, the applicant said he was not sure and was not made aware at the time and assumed that the footprints were created as agreed.

The objector then spoke on the application. The following was discussed in his objection:

He disputed the fact that the reports description of “minor” material amendment was not. The houses originally designed were described as modest in nature but what was built was at least 25% bugger than what was initially proposed and permitted, along with many other unpermitted changes. There were 3 grounds of refusal the objector said members should consider: procedural impropriety, application of planning law and each change in the application. On these grounds, the objector stated that the application has failed and should therefore be refused.

He continued that the frosted film suggested as a condition is easily taken off, and if there was a condition applied it should be frosted glass instead.

The Chair asked the Presiding Planning Officer for clarification on the access agreements. The Officer stated that the issue of land ownership is not material to the planning decision so to his knowledge there is no reason to why Members could not grant planning permission whether or not the Council does have an interest in the land adjoining- it would not be relevant to Members.

The Chair also asked for clarification on the objectors claims that the building was 25% bigger that the permitted plan. The Officer stated that during the course of the application which did go on for years, there were many amendments to the plans. The committee report from 2011 stated the footprint size of both houses and the dimensions mentioned earlier in the officer’s presentation are accurate to the officer’s knowledge.

Councillor Muldoon, referring to the objector’s allegations of improper application of planning law, stated that the Committee is not empowered to interpret law but rather rely on the legal advice given. The Presiding Officer stated that the comments from the objector were put to the legal team who confirmed it is acceptable for the local planning authority to vary the amendments to the plans via section 73 or section 73(a) of the Town and Country Plan Act 1990.

The Presiding Officer also stated that the applicant building outside of compliance has done that at their own risk, and while it is not good or encouraged practice to build an unauthorised development, it is for the consideration for the Council to enforce, if they think that the variations are harmful. He advised that Members make a planning judgement, not considering what the intention was, but is what had been built on the site along with the additional changes (both retrospective and proposed) are suitable on planning terms and do they conform with the development plan.

Councillor Muldoon moved the motion to approve the application. The Committee added the condition that the glass window discussed be frosted/obscured in place of the film.

A vote was taken and the Committee voted in favour of the application.