Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director of Planning on 64 Bishops Rise, Hatfield. A prior approval application under reference 6/2022/2783/PN8 for a 6 metre deep single storey rear extension was granted in January 2023. This permission has been implemented. Following the implementation of the single storey rear extension, the remainder of the garden has undergone works, which are being applied for in this application.  This application seeks planning permission for the retention of an outbuilding, a covered area, fencing, walls and an area of patio, all to the rear of the site.  The outbuilding is sited to the south-western corner of the rear garden and measures approximately 1.8 metres by 4.4 metres and has a footprint of approximately 7.9 metres squared. The outbuilding has an approximate height of 2.4 metres to the top of the flat felt roof and is finished in a grey tile, with a white UPVC window to the elevation facing the house and a white UPVC door and window facing the remainder of the garden. There is a roof overhang, however, this does not adjoin the covered area.  The covered area is sited adjacent to the storage outbuilding, filling the remainder of the space running along the rear boundary of the site. The covered area has a footprint of approximately 22 metres squared, measuring approximately 4.3 metres by 5.1 metres. It has an approximate height of 2.2 metres with the roof constructed of corrugated plastic and wooden timber posts. This area is not enclosed.   Beyond the single storey rear extension, the garden has been fully paved with large cream paving stones, including underneath the covered area. Drainage has been provided. The applicant advises that this is to allow easy access arrangements for an occupier with limited mobility. Evidence of mobility issues of an occupier has been provided by the applicant.   The fence between the boundary of the application site and the neighbouring property at No.62 has been raised to an approximate height of 2.6 metres when measured from the ground level within the application site. The applicant advises that the height of the fence measured from the land levels within the neighbouring dwelling at No.62 is less than 2 metres. A higher fence was erected to ensure appropriate privacy is maintained between the two sites. A wall between the boundary of the application site and the neighbouring dwelling at No.66, along with a wall running along the rear of the site, has also been erected, measuring approximately 2 metres in height.

The application was presented to the Development Management Committee because it has been called-in by Councillor Rowse.

Mohammed Altwail addressed the Committee as the applicant:

“I came here to show this is the house where I moved. I used to live in two houses before but [they] weren't adapted. I was suffering a lot, as you can see, I have a second deterioration MS, and I have been suffering a lot when I lived in other houses, so when I moved to this house, I tried to do this.

I have been from 2015. Until last year, for about eight years, I couldn't go to the kitchen and move, it was very tight, and I couldn't do exercise. I'm talking about this development not just for entertaining, it's for health and safety, is for accessibility. I know I have four children, I need to work and to do exercise as I can't go through the normal gym so I have equipment in that shed.

The way I did this design is to just have more space in the garden, the bathroom, so I can exercise and keep myself healthy and look after my children. I walk there and tried to do my best, so I was not harming and causing any problem as far as I know the council accept and everything I did. I sent a plan to the council and we went through the law as they advise us we were always doing this so I don't know why one of the neighbours complained a lot, more than 10 times. Police here and there and harassment, and we don't know.  I showed one of the document they mentioned which is which is about prioritising the human to live. We don't harm any animals or any causing any problem to anyone in the neighbourhood. All than the neighbours, they are fine with this. I was just coming here to show you how this is important for me and very essential. I was very suffering before, so just to show you how this project is important, so hopefully you will consider that”

Richard Acworth addressed the Committee to speak against the application:

“I live at number 66, which is next door. This all-started April time.

A builder just turned up one morning and said “I'm going to come and take your trees out”, I said, Well, have you got a planning permission or anything like that. And no he just started.

I’m opposing these because the work was carried out without any planning application whatsoever. We had a lot of trouble with the builder.  Digger starting up to seven in the morning every day, drilling and it's not very nice, I've got family.

I've lived with it for 45 years.

I was reporting it to the Environmental Agency, nothing happens in the six months, and when it all finished, they served a notice on the builder. I can't understand why.

Why leave 6 months? I've got to go from 7.15am and equipment starts up until about nine o'clock and then they go to the other side of the building, and they do the work there, but the next morning they come back about 7 and start the noise there.

if you go to 2.6 on a proposed application, the wall dwelling is approximately 2 metres.

It is not a 7 foot 3, which is nine inches over. Now that wall is made out blocks, it's not a brick wall, it's just concrete blocks, so there's a whole concrete block, that is over 2 metres.

And the rest of the dwelling is bad quality. It hasn't been pointed up properly and there's a concrete block at the top of it, so why put a concrete block at the top? I can't understand. 

The whole development with the additional outbuildings is more than 50% of the outdoor space and that impacts on the light and my garden. They’ve got a 10 foot 6 metre extension, there is an additional brick built, building, and then in between, where I had a 6 foot fence, that is seven foot three, so that impacts a lot quite a lot. My wife is blind in one eye. I had, a year ago, a glass roof put in my conservatory, so it was lighter into the room, and this is cutting it out.

Also, because the whole lot is concrete, the whole area of that site is concrete now, so I've got flooding issues in the back garden and the front garden because there's no drainage or anything.”

Councillor Rowse addressed the Committee as the ward Councillor:

“I called this application in, after careful consideration, it is a shame I find myself in this position of objecting to a retrospective planning application as I believed that had the application made by the request as part of his original application to build the extension then a much better plan could have been produced which reconciled the aspirations of the applicant with the need to protect biodiversity. Whilst it might be tempting to allow this retrospective planning application on the grounds that damage is already done, I don't believe that nature should be asked to pay the price for this oversight.

Erecting outbuildings has become increasingly popular, especially since COVID, with more people working from home, I do not object to the outbuilding as such, but taken together with the previous approval to erect a 6 metre extension does, I believe, represent overdevelopment of the overall curtilage and had these being considered together and a smaller extension might have been approved which did not represent such over development.

I believe there is a significant risk that a precedent might be set by this development, and in that I do disagree with the officer, because in my ward, these are starting to come up and you should see some of the developments are extremely unsightly.

.

If we are serious about encouraging biodiversity, then that means we need to be more affirmative and take action to protect it. The applicant is disabled and therefore will need that access to his outbuilding. This could have been achieved, however, through a path between the house and the outbuilding, thereby retaining more of the soft landscaped garden. This would help with the provision of natural corridors, for which wildlife which back gardens provide. I understand that the applicant has provided additional drainage. Taken in isolation I'm sure this isn't a problem. However, there is clear evidence that the widespread replacement of front gardens with hardstanding provision for car parking has overwhelmed are draining drainage systems, and I'm sure DMC members will be aware of the many local problems of local flooding this already causes. The risk now is that the overdevelopment of rear gardens will further exacerbate the problem.

Future generations will not thank us if we simply continue to turn a blind eye to overdevelopment and the destruction of precious wildlife. There has been a lot of talk about badgers tonight, but, unlike in Beatrix Potter's books, local hedgehogs cannot speak up for themselves and I am therefore left to do my best to provide a voice for them.

In summary, I urge that the current proposal to grant retrospective planning permission for this is rejected and that we make clear that this Council is serious about protecting biodiversity, and not just talking about it, thank you.”

Members discussed the application and key points are summarised below:

·        Supporting information for the applicant had been submitted but not shared publicly.

·        It was clarified that the outbuilding, the paving, the walls and the fence were for consideration under this application.

·        Officers clarified that an outbuilding can be built in back garden without planning permission, up to a certain size.

·        A retrospective application the Committee should still consider the impact of building and impact on neighbouring amenities.

·        It was queried why permitted development rights were not removed in January 2023. The officer confirmed that the January 2023 application was the applicant exercising their permitted development rights and there was therefore no power to remove permitted development rights

·        It was queried whether building control had signed off the works which had taken place. Officers clarified that building regulations are not a consideration of the Planning Committee.

·        It was clarified that there was a large drain across the back of the property.

·        Permitted development rights are allowed at 2 meters without consent as the application is over that height; this is why it is included.

·        It was queried what percentage of the garden had been built on and what weight the members of the Committee should give this. Officers could not provide the percentage and clarified that 50% of the garden could be built on without planning permission, anything more would require planning permission.

RESOLVED

(11 in favour and 2 against)

That the planning application be approved.