Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning.

Report of the Head of Planning on Retrospective planning permission which was sought for the existing dwelling.  Planning permission was granted in April 2018 for the erection of a new dwelling on the plot following demolition of existing (application number: 6/2018/0383/FULL).  The dwelling which had been built however was not as per the approved plans.  The key changes were summarised as follows:

-Reduction in depth of dwelling by approximately 0.3 metres;

-Increase in depth of rear patio by 4.6 metres and increase in width of rear patio to span the full width of the plot;

-Setting of dwelling into the ground by approximately 0.65 metres, increase in eaves height by 0.282 metres and increase in ridge height by 0.673 metres;

-Insertion of additional first floor window on Right Side Elevation; 

-Skylights added to single storey rear element;

-Reduction in overall height of front hard boundary treatment;

-Change of windows from uPVC to aluminium; and

- Alterations to openings

The application site is situated on the north-eastern side of Hill Rise and comprises a three-storey detached dwelling (inclusive of habitable roof space) set back from the road behind a large driveway.

This part of Hill Rise slopes steeply uphill from its junction with Sutherland Way/Tolmers Avenue to the junction with Plough Hill and the site is located approximately halfway along this section of the road.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it had been called-in by Councillor George Michaelides.

Northaw & Cuffley Parish Council raised an objection to the development for the reasons set out below:

“At the Planning Committee held 3rd February 2021 the Committee unanimously resolved to submit an objection this application. The grounds for objection are confirmed as overdevelopment of the plot, the height of the shared/adjoining wall, that the roof height would be out of line with the adjoining properties and that the additional side elevation and patio doors contain additional windows causing technical issues with this application”.

Christian Theodorou, Objector, stated that he resided at 6 Hill Rise next door to 8 Hill Rise. He stated that the applicant had deliberately set out to breach planning on a vast scale to increase the size of the property. The applicant had excavated lower than agreed and constructed a retaining wall which did not have planning permission. He stated that the retaining wall was defective and has put his property at risk of serious structural damage. In addition, the applicant failed to provide safety barriers on the retaining wall in order to avoid the potential fall of 1.6 metres from 6 Hill Rise and 2.5 metres from 10 Hill Rise and was a serious safety concern. The raised patio was much larger than approved. The patio now extended to the full width of the plot and towered over neighbours’ gardens and was extremely intrusive. The applicant had gained extra height by excavating lower than agreed and increasing the height of the roof. The applicant also breached the plan by adding an extra window on the right-side elevation. This window was directly opposite the objector’s bedroom and has caused further harm to living conditions and diminished privacy. The driveway has not been landscaped in accordance with the approved plan. The conditions stated that there were to be trees, hedges and soft features and not have been implemented. Neighbours opposite the property felt that the large windows were extremely intrusive. Fellow neighbours of High Rise are all against this application. The property has deliberately been overdeveloped and a significant harm to the street and neighbours.

Members felt that the application was not to plan and had breached planning conditions and that the build was too big within the area.  The Legal Officer stated that Members needed to consider the application in accordance with planning policy.  Therefore this was to be considered as a new application and the officers had assessed the application in accordance with policy and come to a conclusion that they feel that the house as built is not overdevelopment and does not overly dominate the street scenes. The applicant will likely appeal if the application is refused, leaving it to an inspector to determine. The inspector will be asked to make the same planning judgement as the officers in accordance with policy.

Members were concerned about the lack of privacy due to the additional window opposite the bedroom, the front garden’s lack of soft landscaping and the safety of the retaining wall.  Officers stated that in terms of the side window the plans note they will be obscured glazing and non-opening below 1.7 metres from finish floor level which is standard measure to prevent any adverse overlooking or loss of privacy. It was noted that an additional window had been added in a different location and it was comparable to that in the previous application and the measure of obscure glazing and the restriction of the height of the opening is sufficient to make sure there will be no harmful impact in terms of privacy. 

It was noted that the approved landscaping scheme from the previous approval had not been implemented. The officer subsequently contacted the agent to undertake those works. They are now mostly completed and a revised landscaping condition is recommended on this application, with implementation required in the next planting season.

Members asked about the safety of the retaining wall. It has been an important issue and had been discussed in detail between officers and legal advice was also sought. It was considered by Officers that this matter would be appropriately dealt with under the building control regime and/or through litigation between neighbours as a matter of private law. Members also asked whether a fall from the wall could be an issue. Officers confirmed that the retaining wall was incomplete and a fence had been installed above the wall to prevent any falling from that point.  It is not the case that it is exposed and someone could fall off it by walking along the side boundary of No. 6 Hill Rise.

Members asked about the construction of the retaining wall. Officers stated that they had received competing claims from the applicant and No. 6 Hill Rise regarding its safety. The council have sought legal advice from their solicitors on this matter. It would not be reasonable to add a condition or a planning obligation requiring further information as this matter is considered more appropriately dealt with through building regulations.

The Legal officer stated that the issues that had been raised are the structural integrity and the safety of the retaining wall. Also the structural integrity and the potential damage to adjoining properties and buildings. It was noted that if a building is within two metres of the boundary wall, a party wall notice will have to be served and any damage to property that is caused by somebody adjacent will be dealt through the civil courts if there is no agreement.

Members queried the size of the patio. Officers confirmed it was wider than approved and had increased depth. The officer stated that they were comfortable that there was no adverse overlooking and loss of privacy for either of the neighbouring properties due to the 1.8m boundary fences and well-established trees and hedges.

Members noted that the plot looked over dominant and overdeveloped.  Officers stated that whilst the dwelling is taller than approved, its roof and ridge height is still lower than 6 Hill Rise and is considered respectful of the character of the street. The depth of the dwelling itself was slightly smaller and the separation distance from the boundaries was the same. The patio although larger in size is located within a generously sized rear garden and is not considered to be harmful to the living conditions of neighbours. The windows are different than the approved application however on Hill Rise there is a mix of dwellings and materials being used as well as different types and sizes of window openings. Whilst different from approval, it would acceptably relate to the character and appearance of Hill Rise.

Members noted that the applicant had added a garage which had not been in the original application.

Members asked if the Council had asked the applicant why the development had not been built in accordance with the planning permission as there were big changes made. Officers stated that the matter had not been raised and no information was given in the application.

Members asked about the balcony on the third floor and if it caused overlooking. Officers confirmed it was a protective railing for building control purposes and not an actual balcony that could be stood on.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors P. Shah and R. Trigg to accept the application and

RESOLVED:

(6 in favour and 7 against)

Following the defeated motion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors S. Thusu and D. Panter

RESOLVED:

(7 in favour, 4 against and 2 Abstentions)

That planning permission be REFUSED due to the following reasons:

•    overdevelopment within the area

•    dominating design features (windows)