Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) to update Panel Members with regard to the arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 19 October 2017.

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) updated the Panel with regard to arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 19 October 2017.

            RESOLVED

73 Walnut Grove - Owner was contacted in October following a compliance site visit which showed the approved scheme has not been implemented. Latest correspondence on the 6 of November 2017 indicated that work was in progress and plants for the soft landscaping and front hedge have been ordered.  The Enforcement team will continue to monitor implementation with a view to recommend the case for closure on satisfactory completion.  An update will be available at the next meeting.

26 The Croft - The scheme has been implemented and confirmed by a site visit and was considered acceptable. The application was approved on 4 December 2017.  The case will be closed.

251 Knightsfield – The owner was advised the only way forward was to replace the roof lantern with a flat roof light and to reduce the height of the parapet wall, on all sides, to the level proposed under refused application 6/2016/1303/EM.  The Owner has confirmed via e-mail on 15 January 2018 that an architect has been commissioned to prepare the necessary drawings for a revised scheme to be submitted to the Panel for consideration.

31 Sandpit Road - The owner has been contacted with regards to the requirement for a front hedge to be reinstated, as Members had expressed dissatisfaction with the front boundary treatment.   The applicant has been given up to the end of March 2018 to carry out the planting. The case was being kept open until a suitable hedge is planted, following which the case can be closed.

72 Chequers - On 29 December 2017 a retrospective application for the scheme was submitted to the Council for consideration albeit currently invalid (the applicant has requested for extra time to submit the required information).  It was suggested that it may be better to have 50% as minimum planting in the area.  The 48% proposed soft landscaping with the hedge was reasoned acceptable.  The requirement of having greater hardstanding parking areas was understood.

19 Fearnley Road - The applicant has tentatively agreed a modified scheme comprising of approximately 47% soft landscaping to be submitted to the Council for consideration. Submission of a revised scheme for consideration is awaited.  Enforcement Officer has sent a further e-mail on 24 January 2018 with a cautioning of formal action in order to speed up the process.

56 Broomhills – It was noted that the latest response indicated that a hedge, matching the neighbours’ would be planted by March 2018. The Enforcement Team will continue to monitor and update the Panel soon after that date.

11 The Moors - Following authorisation by the Panel in October 2017, a letter was sent to the owner on 23 November 2017 with an invitation to participate in the arbitration process to resolve the dispute. The Enforcement Officer to chase the application and set a deadline by which the retrospective applications would need to be submitted failing which the case would be taken to arbitration.

88 Pentley Park - Following warning letters, a retrospective application for retention of the works was submitted on 11 May 2016 but was refused on 7 July 2016. Following the refusal, the owners have so far ignored correspondence requiring the reinstatement of the front garden and have not taken up the option to appeal the decision to refuse consent for the retention of the works. The matter to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

3 Digswell House Mews – It was noted that the rooflight was still in situ despite the owner being aware that the Panel had dismissed the appeal as well as contact from the Enforcement Team requiring the removal of the rooflight. The matter to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

It was noted by Councillor Cowan that it would be helpful if the new design guide, when it is produced could, rather than simply referring to front and rear elevations, refer to the visual effect of proposals from any publicly visible views. Officers confirmed that this was something that could be considered as part of a future design guide.