Council

Planning Committee

28 November 2013

Appeals Progress Report

Report of Head of Development Management

This report is public

Purpose of report

This report aims to keep members informed upon applications which have been determined by the Council, where new appeals have been lodged. Public Inquiries/hearings scheduled or appeal results achieved.

1.0 Recommendations

The meeting is recommended:

1.1 To accept the position statement.

2.0 Report Details

New Appeals

2.1 13/00259/ECOU – Bishops End, Burdrop appeal by Mr G R Noquet against the service of an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control, namely, without planning permission, the change of use of the land for the storage of a mobile home- Written Reps

13/00621/OUT – Court, Merton Road, Ambrosden appeal by the Trustees of Norman Collisson Foundation against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of Ambrosden Court and the erection of 45 no. residential units with access off Merton Road. - Hearing

13/01027/F – Land at Rowles Farm, appeal by ROC Energy Ltd against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a solar farm with on site equipment rooms and plant, security fencing, landscaping and associated works.- Written Reps

13/01070/F- Land adjacent Cotswold House, Church Lane, appeal by Mr & Mrs Chris Baker against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of new 2 storey dwelling with attached garage. Alterations to existing vehicular access. Re- submission of 12/01790/F- Written Reps 13/00526/F – 36 Lock Crescent appeal by Mrs M Forrester against the refusal of planning permission for a 2 storey dwelling and associated parking- Written Reps

12/00011/CLUE – Bishops End Burdrop appeal by Mrs Jackie Noquet against the refusal of an application for a certificate of lawful use existing for use as a single dwelling house – Inquiry

13/01056/OUT – Land at South Lodge Road, , appeal by Cala Homes (Midlands) Ltd against the refusal of planning permission for an Outline application for the construction of up to 200 no. residential units with associated access, amenity space and associated works - Inquiry

Forthcoming Public Inquiries and Hearings between 28 November and 19 December 2013

2.2 None

Results Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State have:

2.3 Dismissed the appeal by Mrs P Beukes against the refusal of application 13/00273/F for a single storey front extension at 1 Hardwick Road (Delegated) The Inspector commented “the design solution selected here with its uninspiring elevations, flat roof and not insubstantial scale both outwards and lengthways would be most inappropriate in terms of a lack of visual harmony, integration and subordination with the original property. This scheme would look alien and would be jarring on the eye; there would be an obvious failure to be suitably subtle and the scheme would appear incongruous.”

Dismissed the appeal by Mr David Stewart against the refusal of application 13/00148/F for the construction of two detached dwellings and ancillary works at land to rear and adjacent to Ebbs Neuk, Hogg End, (Delegated) – In the Inspectors view, the proposed dwellings would represent an unwieldy mass of building which would be excessive in its own right and appear overly confined within the context and boundaries of the appeal site and its wider surroundings. The clear sense that would pervade would be of the overall scheme being simply too big and architecturally unsuited for its location and it would be jarring on the eye. The Inspector went onto conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality and on living conditions for neighbours.

Allowed the appeal by Mr T Khuja against the refusal of application 12/01685/F which sought to remove condition no 3 of 12/00734/F restricting the operational use of the premises at 28 Lower Cherwell Street (Delegated) - The Inspector was not convinced that what is likely to be a limited number of vehicles travelling, or people walking, along the road or to or from a small restaurant or café would result in undue disturbance and went onto conclude that approval of the variation of the condition to allow the premises to operate between the hours of 8.00am to 11.30pm would not have an unacceptable effect upon the living conditions for local residents.

Dismissed the appeal by Freeman and O’Carroll Contracting against the refusal of 12/01713/F for the erection of two detached dwellings, construction of access way and improvements to existing access at Land North West of OS parcel 5472, Adjacent to Bramshill Park Farm, Little Lane, Horley. (Delegated) The Inspector stated that “the appeal site itself is clearly open countryside” and found that the overall scheme would be unsympathetic to and inappropriate in its surroundings. As a result, whilst the Inspector concluded that the appeal proposal would not give rise to undue impacts upon highway safety and convenience it would have over-riding unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality.

3.0 Consultation

None

4.0 Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection

4.1 The following alternative options have been identified and rejected for the reasons as set out below.

Option 1: To accept the position statement.

Option 2: Not to accept the position statement. This is not recommended as the report is submitted for Members’ information only.

5.0 Implications

Financial and Resource Implications

5.1 The cost of defending appeals can normally be met from within existing budgets. Where this is not possible a separate report is made to the Executive to consider the need for a supplementary estimate.

Comments checked by: Kate Drinkwater, Service Accountant, 01327 322188, [email protected]

Legal Implications

5.2 There are no additional legal implications arising for the Council from accepting this recommendation as this is a monitoring report.

Comments checked by: Nigel Bell, Team Leader – Planning and Litigation, 01295 221687, [email protected]

Risk Management

5.3 This is a monitoring report where no additional action is proposed. As such there are no risks arising from accepting the recommendation.

Comments checked by: Nigel Bell, Team Leader – Planning and Litigation, 01295 221687, [email protected]

6.0 Decision Information

Wards Affected

All

Links to Corporate Plan and Policy Framework

A district of opportunity

Lead Councillor

None

Document Information

Appendix No Title None Background Papers All papers attached to the planning applications files referred to in this report Report Author Bob Duxbury, Development Control Team Leader Contact 01295 221821 Information [email protected]