APPENDIX C 13/02910/1 Copies of Representations Received

APPENDIX C

13/02910/1 Copies of representations received which have been copied in full. These include any representations received up to and including Thursday 6th March.

The appendix is set out under three sections:- 1.0 Representations in support 2.0 Representations making comments 3.0 Representations objecting to the application

1.0 Representations in support

1.1 The Occupier, 6 Clay Pit Cottages 6.03.14

After careful consideration of the information made available by Mary Caldwell and the merits of the arguments shared, I support the retention of the three detached dwellings.

Undoubtedly traffic, road access, servicing and parking in particular will be affected by the retention of this development and whilst I support the application I wish for the following concerns to be noted.

Congestion already exists at the junctions between Salusbury Road, Luton Whitehill and Luton Road such that residents have taken to parking on the green piece of land opposite the proposed new development, spoiling a local green area and deterring children and residents from availing themselves of this amenity. However, positive steps can be taken to change this by the erecting of some kind of railing to protect the green area and the trees that reside on this green. It is worth noting as reported in the 'Village Voice' ( March 2014 Issue 373) that Offley Parish Council has commissioned a survey of all trees for which they are responsible for and perhaps the maintenance and protection from motor vehicles using the green as an overflow parking facility be taken into consideration when looking to maintain both trees and green area by both serving bodies North Herts. Council and Offley Parish Council.

Parking: The retention of this development will greatly impact availability and ease of parking for neighbouring residents. The growth in number of residents operating businesses from home will in turn generate a greater number of commercial vehicle movements, customer and supplier vehicles movements (many manoeuvres occurring along the section of Luton Road with no through access). The noise and abuse of driveways for u-turn manoeuvres remains a point of contention. Safer roads for residents and neighbours has to be given consideration and priority.

Servicing The absence of appropriate road signs and signage for homes on Luton Road causes great confusion for Services including and not exclusive to Royal Mail ( and other delivery companies) the Emergency Services, local Council services including refuge collection, local business, taxi firms, etc and impacts negatively on residents. A Positive solution would be the creation of suitable signage for both the new development detailing house numbers 9,11, 15 Luton Road and signage directing services to house numbers of 1-6 Claypit Cottages, Luton Road. The problems associated with poor road and house number signage is crystallised in the recent request from Offley Post Office in the Village Voice March 2014, issue 373. It requests that residents ensure that addresses are correct when purchasing online as allegedly a large percentage of mail is late due to wrong address details. It is likely that the lack of suitable road and house number signage is a contributory factor to the inconvenience and frustration caused.

PLANNING CONTROL (20.03.14) APPENDIX C

2.0 Representations making comments

The Occupier, Mount Pleasant 16.12.13

With regard to the above application for retention we would like to say that the 3 houses on the plot Dominate Claypit Cottages due to there height, they are more of a town house, and do not fit in with the surrounding propertys.

The roofing material should have been slate to at least match Claypit Cotts, and the triple garage against claypits fence line appears to large for the site.

They really are not the right type of houses for this site.

3.0 Representations objecting to the application

3.1 Offley Parish Council 24.02.14

Offley Parish Council strongly objects to this planning application for retrospective planning permission. The objections and history are summarised below. 1. The original Planning Application 12/00256/1 was determined without due regard to legitimate objections.

2. NHDC did not correctly report the application to the planning committee. If they had, the committee might have determined differently.

3. Immediately the works commenced, objectors advised that the works were not in accordance with the approved documentation. NHDC where embarrassingly forced to seek a further application.

4. The further application 12/02507/1 was the subject of mal administration by NHDC.

5. Works continued and the objectors advised NHDC these were not compliant. NHDC once again disagreed.

6. The objectors insisted NHDC were wrong and after 7 weeks of denial by NHDC their development and conservation manager viewed the works in progress from Claypit cottages and confirmed the works were not compliant.

7. NHDC then failed to carry out their duties, even after the mal administration of the application and took a further 6 weeks whilst the works continued until agreeing that the works were in breach of Planning Control and unlawful as constructed.

8. Despite being aware of their own mal administration, NHDC in their defense sought to blame the objectors for not bringing the non-compliance to the attention of NHDC. The objectors had properly advised NHDC at all times.

9. A further retrospective application was due to NHDC by 20/09/13. This was not received by NHDC. The latest application is an attempt to regularise the current situation. Indicating NHDC has allowed the developer to flaunt the planning regulations for 7 months!

10. NHDC have failed in their statutory duty and have ignored Planning Law and Planning Regulations, as well as failed to act on behalf of the Parishioners. NHDC have allowed a blatant abuse of the Planning Process by a developer seeking to profit at the expense of the community.

11. The objectors have sought from the outset to regularise the Mal administration by NHDC, by constructive use of the Planning Process. It is unreasonable for them to incur expense and Planning Harm caused by NHDC failures.

12. The current application has windows at ground and first floor level that overlook and remove privacy from Claypit Cottages. Obscure glass and fixed windows will not remedy this as they can be changed in future. The currently approved scheme states there are no windows overlooking Claypit Cottages due to careful design and particular attention to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy. This is a material consideration under planning regulations.

13. The proposed siting of the houses affects levels of daylight and sunlight falling on the adjoining properties and land. The currently approved scheme, clearly states that the houses have been positioned to maintain existing levels of daylight and sunlight. Therefore the new positioning is a serious departure from the approved scheme and a material consideration.

14. The current application has the houses set at a considerable level above Claypit Cottages. The current approved scheme clearly states that” the buildings (garages and houses) are in scale with the existing houses in Claypit Cottages. The height, bulk and massing is in keeping with the existing properties in the locality.” Therefore to accept the Homes built so high is incorrect and a departure from what is approved.

15. The application seeks to add additional parking spaces. The approved scheme states that a shared driveway allows adequate turning for vehicles. This does not appear to be the case. Vehicle movements are very restricted, the developer seeks additional spaces as he is now selling as 4 /5 bedroom homes.

16. The currently approved scheme is for 3 x 3 Bed houses. The developer is advertising the properties as 4/5 Bedroom properties and is also advertising that they have sold 2 properties subject to contract.

The approved application notes that NHDC previously declined 4 Bed properties on the site as over development. As NHDC have consulted with the developer on the latest application and the developer has continued to build with confidence without Planning Permission it would appear that NHDC are unlawfully pre determining this application. Furthermore we are being asked to believe that the developer ignored the original permission, repositioned the houses, built in the roof at his own risk and Building Control missed this entirely. Unbelievable! 17. The current application does not comply with Policies, 7, 55 and 57.

18. NHDC must refuse this application, carry out their statutory duties and not allow a developer to deliberately and willfully flaunt the Planning Process at the expense of the community.

19. The land has been built up and allows the surface water from the site to discharge over the property, boundaries and access to 3, 4, 5 and 6 Claypit Cottages, this is unacceptable.

20. It is essential that members of the Planning Committee visit the site and view the site from Claypit Cottages to fully understand how wrong and misleading the current application is.

Please copy these objections to all members of the planning committee to ensure that they are properly informed. END

3.2 The Occupiers, Ropewalk Cottage, 20.12.13

Planning Case 13/02910/1 Land adjacent to Claypit cottage, Luton Road, Offley I am writing to you to once again register my objection to the above case application. Why do you continue to support a builder who is just in this for the profit. We expect NHDC officers to protect the interests of the community, not the bottom line of the builder. Looks like you have registered the application but not read it? Are you intending passing this under delegated powers? This must be placed before the planning committee. However if you continue to misinform them then it is a pointless exercise! You will have covered up your INCOMPETENCE AND THE BUILDER WILL BE LAUGHING AT YOU AND THE NEIGHBOURS! Claypit Cottages suffer considerable planning harm, from this and the previous applications, You know this but choose to ignore it? Privacy is compromised by windows that application 12/00256/1 does not allow. Replacing clear glass with obscure does not COMPLY it can be replaced at any time Claypit cottages are dwarfed by the bulk and appearance of this development . Why have you allowed the properties to be built so high, rather than follow the contours that existed. Presumably you missed that fact! Water now discharges from the development on to Claypit Cottgaes, built in 1834, we have little or no Foundations, did you think of that? Clearly not, as your main aim is to protect the developer and ignore the members of this community! Sunlight and daylight falling onto Claypit Cottages is compromised by continual shadows. The application refers to an overshadowing survey,cant find this on the website? You probably have not even read it anyway. Where are the level surveys that indicates these properties can be so high, I want to see it please, you cant have all the FFL at the same height, on a sloping site! The DLA report, it is rubbish! it refers to cases that are have no connection to this application. You didn’t read that either! 9 parking spaces on this site! Shall we put 9 cars on the site and see how that works, or is it just NHDC trying to help the builder sell 4/5 Bed houses you only gave permission for 3. Please explain this to me. Offley does not need this development at all, there are soon to be a lot of properties in this village What happened to Permission 12/02507/01, are we all supposed to forget that one? This application is not an amendment to 12/00256/1 it is amendment to 12/02507/01 which is unlawful as built, but you want to pass this one, explain that to me please. Please give me the contact details for all members of the planning committee and parish council, They need to come to the site and view from Claypit cottages, not rely on views from the site or your misleading advice.. Do your job and decide this under the planning rules and regulations. What is the point of having a Planning Policy and a planning committee when we

PLANNING CONTROL (20.03.14) APPENDIX C have a planning department that can’t do their job. When they get it wrong they need to hold their hand up not wriggle and appear to be placing the planning process in a very questionable place. Look at nearby planning Departments and how they protect their community. Refuse this application, the builder can appeal and try his luck with an appeal officer who will only act on the facts, He will question NHDC role, you can explain that? The Government Ombudsman will have a field day with NHDC, no doubt from your actions so far you don’t really care! I ask you to acknowledge receipt of this correspondence by return. Please copy to Councillors D and F Barnard and Strong who I expect you have mislead to date!

Second e-mail from the Occupiers of Ropewalk Cottage received 6.03.14 OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 13/02910/01 We strongly object to the above application and question the role that the planning department and yourself in particular have played in this fiasco. After failing to notice that the applicant did not comply with the previous permission 12/02507/1, and shown a continued determination to support the developer. You failed to listen to the objections raised against 12/00256/1 and 12/02507/1 and are clearly going to do the same in this instance. The properties are approved as 3 bed houses, you have allowed them to be erected as 5 bed houses and the developer flaunts this in your face and advertises two of them as sold subject to contract. You then propose to allow additional parking to support the additional house sizes, there is absolutely no way that the quantity of vehicles suggested can move within or around the site. The site has been installed to levels to suit the developer, non of these levels are approved and this adds to the bulk and massing being larger than Claypit cottages and being seen above the ridge line from many locations in the village. I have previously advised you that water from the site runs off the site and causes problems, alot of water runs down the bottom of our road and at the moment is sitting there it is effecting all our neighbours, do not continue to ignore this and pretend it does not happen. If an accident occurs in the future due to the facts brought to your attention you will be held responsible. The DLA report appears to contain so much inaccurate information, you have either not read and checked it or assume just because it has been issued we should all accept it. Contrary to what you want us to believe, the latest application does not comply with your policies and guidelines with regard to Design and layout ,Orientation, Privacy, open space and amenity, enhancement and maintaining the character of the surrounding area. The members of the committee must visit this site, not just the development site and understand how wrong your support for this application is!

3.3 Parish Councillor – understand this has been copied to all Members of the Planning Committee 8.02.14 Dear Ms Caldwell I wish to express my concerns about NHDC's handling of the above development. The determination of the original application 12/00256/1 appears to have badly flawed; legitimate objections were overlooked and NHDC failed to correctly report

PLANNING CONTROL (20.03.14) APPENDIX C the application to the planning committee. Correctly reported, the outcome may well have been different. As soon as the work started it was clear that it did not accord to the approved plans; NHDC were informed and obliged to request a further application (12/02507/1) that again seems to have been incorrectly handled by NHDC. Work continued and once again NHDC were advised by objectors that these were non compliant. NHDC disagreed and, despite further representations from the objectors, continued to do so for 7 weeks until NHDC's Development and Conservation Manger finally visited the site and confirmed that the works were indeed not compliant. It then took another 6 weeks before it was confirmed that the works were in breach and therefore unlawful. In the meantime, however, construction work continued. NHDC apparently then attempted to defend their lack of intervention by blaming the objectors for not advising them of the non-compliance problems! This was clearly untrue in light of the above. Apparently a further retrospective application due in September last year was not received by NHDC - hence this latest cynical attempt by the developers to seek approval and acceptance for their blatant flaunting of the Planning Regulations over many months. The current application shows windows overlooking. and thereby affecting the privacy of, adjacent property - a major factor when considering planning applications. The unlawful repositioning of the building affects the levels of both daylight and sunlight to the property thus contravening a specific condition of the plans originally approved. Retrospective approval is also being sought for additional parking spaces. The approved plans also require buildings - height, bulk and massing - to be in scale with existing properties. This requirement has also been ignored and indeed has been exacerbated by the fact that the land has been built up with the result that surface water now discharges over the boundary of the site and into the gardens of existing cottages. The Parish Council rejected the original application because they considered the houses to be too large for that situation and should be replaced by 3 bedroomed properties.This view that was confirmed by NHDC Planning who, on the currently approved application, granted approval for three 3 bedroomed houses; the developer is now offering them for sale as 4/5 bedroomed properties - and indeed claims that two properties have already been sold on that basis. I understand that NHDC have been in consultation with the developers regarding their latest application but in the meantime it seems that development has been allowed to continue despite the lack of planning permission. Why? Presumably the developer has every confidence that permission will be granted regardless of his blatant non-observance of the planning requirements; he surely would not have continued otherwise. I hope that NHDC has not already indicated that approval will be granted; this surely would be unlawful and indicate a high degree of maladministration? Faced with a planning application for the development as it is currently shown Offley Parish Council would most certainly reject it on the basis of that the properties are too large, out of scale with existing properties and that the planned siting interferes with the existing levels of daylight, sunlight and privacy on adjacent properties. The request for additional parking spaces would also come into question. These factors were all taken into account when the Parish Council considered and approved the current application; the latest application appears to be a belated attempt by developers - who have blatantly ignored the conditions stipulated on the approval granted by NHDC Planning Committee - to avoid the consequences of their cynical attempts to gain financial benefit at the expense of owners of adjacent

PLANNING CONTROL (20.03.14) APPENDIX C cottages by gaining retrospective approval. I urge the Planning Committee to visit the site so that they maysee through the cloud of misinformation surrounding this latest application and assess for themselves the true situation and the impact on the neighbouring properties and - -please reject this cynical attempt to ride rough-shod through planning laws for personal gain.

3.4 Parish Councillor (dated 3.3.14)

Mrs Caldwell & all members of NHDC Planning Committee Planning Applications 12/00256/1, 12/02507/1 & 13/02910/1 I wish to express my concerns about NHDC's handling of the ‘Clay Pit’ development. As very few of the Planning Committee lives in the area I urge the Planning Committee to visit the site so that they may see through the cloud of misinformation surrounding the latest application and assess for themselves the true situation and the impact on the neighbouring properties. I strongly believe the developer has deliberately gone out of its way to deceive the Planning Committee. With the prospect of further planning applications being submitted in and around the village this development does not set a very good precedent. The determination of the original application 12/00256/1 appears to have badly flawed; legitimate objections were overlooked and NHDC failed to correctly report the application to the planning committee. Correctly reported, the outcome may well have been different. As soon as the work started it was clear that it did not accord to the approved plans; NHDC were informed and obliged to request a further application, 12/02507/1, that again seems to have been incorrectly handled by NHDC. Work continued and once again NHDC were advised by objectors that these were non compliant. NHDC disagreed and, despite further representations from the objectors, continued to do so for 7 weeks until NHDC's Development and Conservation Manger finally visited the site and confirmed that the works were indeed not compliant. It then took another 6 weeks before it was confirmed that the works were in breach and therefore unlawful. In the meantime, however, construction work continued. NHDC apparently then attempted to defend their lack of intervention by blaming the objectors for not advising them of the non-compliance problems! This was clearly untrue in light of the above. Apparently a further retrospective application due in September last year was not received by NHDC - hence this latest attempt by the developers to seek approval and acceptance for their blatant flaunting of the Planning Regulations over many months. The current application shows windows overlooking, and thereby affecting the privacy of the adjacent property; a major factor when considering planning applications. The unlawful repositioning of the building affects the levels of both daylight and sunlight to the property thus contravening a specific condition of the plans originally approved. Retrospective approval is also being sought for additional parking spaces.

The approved plans also require buildings - height, bulk and massing - to be in scale with existing properties. This requirement has also been ignored and indeed has been exacerbated by the fact that the land has been built up with the result that surface water now discharges over the boundary of the site and into the gardens of existing cottages. The Parish Council rejected the original application because they considered the houses to be too large for the site and should be replaced by 3 bed roomed properties. This view was confirmed by NHDC Planning who, on the currently approved application, granted approval for three 3 bed roomed houses; the developer is now offering them for sale as 4/5 bed roomed properties - and indeed claims that two properties have already been sold on that basis. I understand that NHDC have been in consultation with the developers regarding their latest application but in the meantime it seems that development has been allowed to continue despite the lack of planning permission. Why? Presumably the developer has every confidence that permission will be granted regardless of his blatant non-observance of the planning requirements; he surely would not have continued otherwise. I hope that NHDC has not already indicated that approval will be granted; this surely would be unlawful and indicate a high degree of maladministration? Faced with a planning application for the development as it is currently shown Offley Parish Council would most certainly reject it on the basis of that the properties are too large, out of scale with existing properties and that the planned siting interferes with the existing levels of daylight, sunlight and privacy on adjacent properties. The request for additional parking spaces would also come into question. These factors were all taken into account when the Parish Council considered and approved the original application; the latest application appears to be a belated attempt by developers -who have blatantly ignored the conditions stipulated on the approval granted by NHDC Planning Committee - to avoid the consequences of their cynical attempts to gain financial benefit at the expense of owners of adjacent cottages by gaining retrospective approval.

3.5 Parish Councillor– The Rookery, Kings Walden Road (dated 24th February)

Dear Ms Caldwell,

Ref: Application 13/02910/1Claypit Cottages

I was dismayed to hear from a member of our community at a recent meeting of the OffleyParish Council regarding the history of the development at Clapit cottages. Originally planning was determined against the recommendation of Offley Parish Council which had legitimate concerns (application nr. 12/00256/1). It is my understanding thatNHDC did not correctly report the application to the planning committee,If they had, the committee might have determined differently.There have also been failures within building control which could have stopped this development before the houses were completed. In my view the developer has completely ignored the planning permission which was granted and built larger properties in different positions.

I would ask that 1. permission is refused for this application on the grounds listed below 2. The members of the planning committee personally visit the site so that they can have an appreciation of the impact of these houses on the surrounding area and properties.

I have visited the site and my view is that the developer has ignored the permission originally granted and built what he felt appropriate and more profitable. It would concern me if this method of developing is allowed as I fear it would encourage other developers to adopt a similar attitude.

Below is my summary of the deviations from the permission granted:  Larger properties than originally granted, originally 3 x 3 bedroom properties now 3 x 5 bedroom properties.  Change in levels of the land by in places much more than 2 foot – The current approved scheme clearly states that” the buildings (garages and houses) are in scale with the existing houses in Claypit Cottages. The height, bulk and massing is in keeping with the existing properties in the locality.” This allows the surface water from the site to discharge over the property, boundaries and access to 3, 4, 5 and 6 Claypit Cottages, which is unacceptable.  Overshadowing of neighbouring properties –the currently approved scheme, clearly states that the houses have been positioned to maintain existing levels of daylight and sunlight.  Overlookingof neighbouring properties – the currently approved scheme states there should be particular attention to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy  The heights of the properties are not as originally prescribed in the design and access statement – that the building would fit in with the existing buildings - they are significantly higher and there is a pitched roof on the garages.

Views on the Planning application 13/02910/1 1. This is overdevelopment of the site –NHDC previously declined 4 Bed properties on the site as over development. 2. The access to the property is dangerous, it is on a fast road and visibility is extremely poor. 3. The development has windows at ground and first floor level that overlook and remove privacy from Claypit Cottages. From my understanding this is a material consideration under planning regulations. 4. The position of the properties affects levels of daylight and sunlight falling on the adjoining properties and land. Again, from my understanding this is a material consideration under planning regulations. 5. The application does not comply with Policies, 7, 55 and 57 6. The land has been built up and allows the surface water from the site to discharge over the property, boundaries and access to 3, 4, 5 and 6 Claypit Cottages, this is unacceptable.

A further concern is that the planning department has ignored a neighbours concerns regarding deviation from the original permission granted, despite repeated attempts by him to bring this matter to the planning departments attention. This has led him to eventually having to employ a barrister at his own cost for the planning department to finally take his concerns seriously. From my understanding the developer has flaunted the planning regulations and NHDC has failed in its statuary duty to enforce the regulations on behalf of the local community.

The above application is wrong and misleading and the planning committee should refuse it.

Yours faithfully,

3.6 Resident 4.3.14

I am writing to every member of the planning council for North Herts in my capacity as a resident of Offley village because I am appalled and shocked to hear about what has happened with regard to this application. Examining the information that is available, it is clear to me that the developer has made a mockery of the planning process and that an example needs to be made here so that it is clear to all that planning guidelines need to be followed in any application and that if they are not then action will be taken.

I am urging you to visit the site and view it from Claypit Cottages to fully understand how wrong and misleading the current application is. At the very least please take a look at the attached photograph which gives you some idea of the extent of the problem.

A detailed objection has been submitted by the parish council. I would like to draw your attention to four key points:

1. permission was granted for 3 x3 bed homes, the developer ignored the permission and erected 4/5 bed homes. He is openly marketing them as such to maximise their profit and the community are being asked to accept the considerable planning harm caused. 2. The current application has windows at ground and first floor level that overlook and remove privacy from Claypit Cottages. Obscure glass and fixed windows will not remedy this as they can be changed in future. The currently approved scheme states there are no windows overlooking Claypit Cottages due to careful design and particular attention to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy. This is a material consideration under planning regulations. 3. The proposed siting of the houses affects levels of daylight and sunlight falling on the adjoining properties and land. The currently approved scheme, clearly states that the houses have been positioned to maintain

existing levels of daylight and sunlight. Therefore the new positioning is a serious departure from the approved scheme and a material consideration. 4. The current application has the houses set at a considerable level above Claypit Cottages. The current approved scheme clearly states that” the buildings (garages and houses) are in scale with the existing houses in Claypit Cottages. The height, bulk and massing is in keeping with the existing properties in the locality.” Therefore to accept the Homes built so high is incorrect and a departure from what is approved.

I look forward to hearing the outcome from the discussions of this application at the next planning committee and I sincerely hope you will consider these facts and support the objection to this application.

3.7 Consultant report – 5.3.14

Please see separate pages to appendix

PLANNING CONTROL (20.03.14)