Agenda item

Variation of conditions 2 (materials) and 3 (approved plans) pursuant to planning permission 18/00515/FUL in order to install a flat roof rather than a pitched roof 

41A Southward, Seaton Sluice, Whitley Bay, Northumberland 

NE26 4DQ.

Richard Laughton, Planning Officer reminded members that the planning application had previously been considered by the committee in July.   

To recap, the extension to 41a Southward had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and the application sought retrospective consent through a variation of condition for the development, as built. 

Members deferred the application until the November meeting to allow the applicants time to consider making changes to the built extension that would be acceptable on planning grounds. 

To date, the applicants had not been in contact with the planning department to discuss and no further plans had been submitted.  Therefore, the application had been brought back to committee with a recommendation for refusal. 

Mr Laughton continued to describe the application by presentation and plans on screen. 

Following the presentation, Mr Laughton explained that the recommendation was for refusal and informed the committee that the wording had been slightly amended to include the impact of the external staircase, to read:- 

Refusal Reason 1 

The two storey rear extension and proposed external staircase, by virtue of their siting, scale, mass and design do not respect or complement the style or character of the existing dwelling and constitute incongruous additions to the street scene, resulting in significant harm to the visual amenities of the locality.  This would be contrary to polices DC1 and DC28 of the Blyth Valley District Local Development Framework:  Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007), Policy ENV 2 of the Blyth Valley Core Strategy and the NPPF. 

Refusal Reason 2 

The two storey rear extension by virtue of its siting, scale, mass and height results in significant adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property at 39a Southward Avenue in terms of unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight, visual outlook, structural proximity and an overbearing presence and the proposed external staircase would result in significant harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 41 Southward by virtue of increased overlooking of their rear elevation and rear garden.  This would be contrary to polices DC1 and DC28 of the Blyth Valley District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2007) and the NPPF. 

Mrs Burt, applicant, was in attendance and spoke in support of the application: 

• Members would recall that the decision at the July meeting was to defer the application to allow changes to the extension. 
• However, plans before the committee were those that were considered earlier this year.  Since that meeting, no further objection or comments had been submitted and no further objections since her parents-in-law who resided next door, had since relocated. 
• She still believed the proposed extension would not result in any significant impact. 
• They had consulted the neighbour next door who had not objected. 
• Both properties enjoyed a good outlook with long day time and evening sunshine with the overshadowing effect being short lived. 

• The extension was appropriate and constructed with matching materials 
• Properties nearby had flat roof extensions and other properties nearby having approved plans for raised balconies. 
• Each application must be assessed on its own merits and the issues in the report were subjective and she hoped the committee would recognise that the application followed the established pattern of the estate. 
• The Building Control Inspector was fully aware of the deviation of plans and at no time had he told them to stop building and it was he who had put them in this position. 
• There had been no objections from neighbours and she kindly asked the committee to grant the application. 

Mr Burt was also in attendance and raised the following. 

• He had built the extension himself and had relied on the Building Inspector's advice.  When he had asked about extending the flat roof, had been advised by the Building Inspector that he would sign the work off so as long as the neighbour did not complain. 
• Mr Laughton had also indicated to his wife by telephone, that if there had been no objections, the work would have been signed off.  He questioned the guidelines from the Council and stated that he had been given the wrong advice. 

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:- 

• The application had been brought back by members to give the applicants the opportunity to amend the plans and come back with a design, that was acceptable in planning terms, which they had not done. 
• The application was separate to the retrospective permission for partial change of use of downstairs of property to childcare which had been granted temporary  permission for 2 years for change of use to allow the applicants to seek alternative premises. 

• There had been one objection from the neighbour to the south of the property who had since moved.  There had been no objections from anyone else. 
• For clarification, Mrs Murphy advised the planning committee that the application went against policies and guidance.  The extension as built, did not correspond with the plans previously approved in that it was a different design and larger. 
• Mr Laughton reported that he had tried to contact the Building Inspector but he had left the Authority.  However he commented that building control regulations were different to planning regulations and it was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that plans were in accordance. 
• Mr Laughton stated that the applicants had only contacted him briefly in response to correspondence he had sent to the applicant. 
• In response to a question regarding an evidence trail, Mrs Murphy explained that Planning and Building Control were separate departments.  It was not up to the Building Inspector to ask the Planning Department whether an applicant had planning permission.  It was the applicant’s responsibility to make sure that planning permission and building regulations were in place. 

A member was concerned about the lack of contact surrounding the application and suggested a review of making contact count. 

In response about whether Building Inspection and Planning came under the same directorate, it was advised that Building Inspection fell under Public Protection and Planning fell under Planning and Economy.   

Councillor Echichelvan raised concern about the serious breach of trust and was unsure whether he could support refusal of the application.  He stated that the process should be revisited and proposed that the committee should disregard the decision for refusal as there was no case of precedence and also the Planning Authority had a responsibility to the public regarding trust.   

Ms Bulman, Solicitor, advised to refuse officer recommendation, there would need to be planning reasons.  The issue with the Building Inspector would need to be looked at separately, precedence issues were not a planning reason and the application needed to be looked at in planning terms. 

Councillor Scott proposed the recommendation for refusal, which was seconded by Councillor Robinson. 

Debate took place and it was stated that the Committee had tried their best to give the applicants time to amend plans back in July.  The whole process of the application should be investigated to see what had happened.  Concern was raised that the applicant had invested a lot of money and had relied heavily on building control.  However, the applicant was aware the extension was not as to the plan and had been given a chance in July to reach a solution.  The  applicants had very little contact with the planning department since July and had relied heavily on there being no objections, which was not a material planning matter. 

Upon being put to the vote the results were as follows:-  

FOR: 5; AGAINST: 2. 

It was therefore:- 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED permission subject to the amended conditions/reasons.