Report to Regulatory Committee - 8 December 2010 Development Control

Report To Regulatory Committee - 8 December 2010 Development Control Subject : Appeal Decisions Quarterly Summary Report Report Ref : Appeals Qtr Report 08.10 – 10.10 Ward(s) : All Report Of : Head of Planning and Transport Derek Vout - Direct Line (01256) 845403. Contact : E-mail - [email protected] Reporting Dates : 1st August 2010 to 31st October 2010 Papers relied on to Appeal Decisions published by The Planning Inspectorate. produce this http://www.planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk report: Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN SUMMARY 1.0 This Report : 1.1 Attached as Appendix A and B is a summary analysis of the appeal decisions received from the 1 August 2010 to 31October 2010. This highlights some of the issues drawn out by the Inspectors in arriving at their decision and which should be taken into account when future decisions are made, but is by no means a summary of all the issues referred to in the Inspectors’ decision notices. 1.2 Those decisions of particular note have been more fully detailed in Appendix A. A full copy of the decision letters can be requested from the contact above. 1.3 Any comments or suggestions on this quarterly report are welcomed from Members. Members may want to note that the next Appeal Summary Report will be reported to the March 2011 Development Control Committee meeting. 1.4 Any costs decisions are reported with each planning appeal. The agreed amount is finalised sometime after the appeal decision is issued. Between 1st August 2010 and 31st October 2010 there have been no settlements to report to members. 2 Recommendation: It is recommended that: 2.1 The Committee notes this report. 1 of 13 3 Priorities, Impacts and Risks Contribution To Council Priorities This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Council Plan Ref 06-09: Priority 3 Service Plan Ref 06-09: PL9 Other References: Contribution To Community Strategy Community Strategy Ref 03-06: Impacts No Some Significant Type significant impacts impacts impacts Impacts for Financial BDBC Personnel Legal Impacts on Equality and Diversity Wellbeing Crime and Disorder Health Environment Economic Involving Communication/Consultation Others Partners Risk Assessment Number of risks identified: Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium: Yes Strategic: Already identified on Corporate Risk Register? No Yes Operational: Already identified in Service Plans? No 2 of 13 APPENDIX A 05/08/2010 Land to rear 13/15 Hill Road, Oakley BDB 70679 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse The development proposed is the construction of 7 dwellings with associated access, parking and amenity space. There are a number of issues which taken together suggest the site is overdeveloped. All three blocks have hidden flat roofs which suggests the houses, particularly in the two main blocks are unusually deep. The result is excessively large flank walls to the two main blocks, which would make them appear over-large and dominant. Another feature of the two main blocks is that they fill the space available almost to the boundaries, leaving little room for landscaping and screening. This design amounts to over-development that harms the character and appearance of the area. A mature Ash subject to a TPO stands in the far north-east corner of the site. This will require a 30% reduction in order to provide a reasonable gap between the canopy and nearest house on plot 7. The Council calculate it would shade 60% of the rear garden of plot 7. As this is a north facing garden, it will receive little direct sunshine anyway, and for most of it to be overhung by a tree it will add to the sense of gloom, which would not provide good living conditions for the prospective occupiers. Any development on this site will lead to a substantial reduction in the current dense vegetation and open up views into and out of any proposed houses. This will result in the peace and privacy currently enjoyed in the rear gardens of the houses that back onto the site being reduced. Policies referred : A2, C1, C2, C9, E1, E6 and E7 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure 6/09/2010 Twiggys Farm, Freefolk, Whitchurch BDB 71576 Dismissed Decision Level : Committee Recommendation : Grant The development proposed is a mobile home for use as a temporary agricultural workers dwelling Some of the trappings and movements to and from the small holding inevitably mimic some of those of domestic occupation. Also general domestic paraphernalia, including such tell-tale signs of domestic use as refuse bins at the roadside at certain times, are characteristic of a dwelling. These various features would detract from the feeling of remoteness and tranquillity by signalling residential accommodation and by adding an element of urbanisation to Priory Lane. The harm to the remote and tranquil landscape character of the AONB outweighs the needs of the smallholding. Cost application by appellant The process and basis of the Council’s decision was sound and it has not behaved unreasonably and not caused the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The application for costs therefore fails. 3 of 13 Policies referred : E1 & E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Landscape Character Assessment – Litchfield Down Countryside Design Summary 29/09/2010 36 Vyne Road, Basingstoke BDB 72018 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse The development proposed is erection of a terrace of 3 no. two bedroom dwellings with associated parking, and the retention of 36 Vyne Road as a family dwelling. The appeal scheme would reduce the garden of 36 Vyne Road to roughly half its current depth which would materially reduce the contribution the setting makes to the building’s significance as a heritage asset. Provisions for parking and refuse collection, and retaining an electricity transformer would in combination leave minimal scope for soft landscaping in the frontage courtyard area and along the drive. The proposed layout would appear cramped, detracting from the more spacious character of the locality, which is indicative of an over-development of the site. The elements of the unilateral undertaking obligation directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably relates to the development in scale and kind, and is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Cost Application by Appellant The Council’s refusal reason relating to housing mix is unreasonable in the particular circumstances of this case, and the Council could have taken a more proactive approach in relation to this issue and to the matter of financial contributions. Overall however the council’s behaviour in these respects has not caused the appellant wasted or unnecessary expense. The cost application therefore fails. Policies referred : A2, C1, C3, C7, C9, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Interim Guidance Document - Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure SPD Design and Sustainability – Appendices: Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling; Places to Live; Urban Character Study SPD Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards 7/10/2010 Thursden House, Upton Grey EC/08/00700 Upheld The breach of planning control as alleged in the enforcement notice is: without planning permission the following breaches of planning control have taken place: change of use of the Land from agricultural to residential use the erection of an elevated playhouse on the Land. The requirements of the notice are, with regard to the breach of planning control, (i) permanently cease the use of the Land for residential purposes and permanently remove all non-agricultural items from the Land; and (ii) permanently remove the elevated play house together with all materials used in its construction from the Land. 4 of 13 For appeal on Ground (d) see BDB/71684 below (Ground (d) states the Appellant must demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice commenced 10-years before the date of issue and has continued) For the appeal on Ground (a) - deemed planning application: The built form would not be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area by virtue of its siting, which is contrary to the traditional form of the settlement in which the built forms predominantly fronts a highway. The open countryside, of which the appeal site forms part, contributes to the special interest of the designated area. To allow the deemed application, in whole or part, would not, at a minimum, preserve this character. Policies referred : D6, E1, E3 and E6 - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 7/10/2010 Thursden House, Upton Grey BDB 71684 Dismissed Decision Level : Delegated Recommendation : Refuse The use for which an LDC was sought was the continued use of land as part of the residential garden. The Appellant must demonstrate on the balance of probability that the breach of planning control alleged commenced 10-years before. The decisive factors in dismissing the appeal was that the proof demonstrating that material change of use had taken place prior to the 10 year date was not present, because the submitted written evidence is imprecise and ambiguous. The Appellant’s oral testimony at the Inquiry did not change this. 13/10/2010 The Jennings Yard, Sherborne St John EC/08/00181 Part Allowed The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission the change of use of the Land from nil use to use as a “builders yard”. The requirements of the notice are to: Permanently cease the use of the Land as a “builders yard”; Permanently remove from the Land all items connected to the use of the Land as a builders yard including, but not limited to, building materials, bricks, slabs, sand, cement, wood and plastics and equipment.

Load more