Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the variation of Condition 10 (tenancy restriction) on planning permission N6/1994/0338/FP.

The application site was located at the end of a cul-de-sac, Stanborough Close, which was located off Stanborough Road towards the south west of Welwyn Garden City.  The immediate locality consisted of mixed land use including residential, retail and leisure uses. 

Planning permission for the demolition of existing garages, and erection of 12 flats in two blocks, and 11 elderly persons bungalows, car parking, landscaping, and alterations to highway was granted planning permission on 29 September 1994 (ref: N6/1994/0338/FP).  Condition 10 of that permission stated:

“The 11 no. elderly person bungalows forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied by at least one person who is over the statutory age of retirement (including a widow or widower of such a person), at all times in the future.

REASON: Because the development has been designed to meet the needs of the elderly with a car parking provision and garden amenity areas which reflect the needs of the elderly, and which would not be appropriate if the bungalows were occupied by families or without any occupancy restrictions’.

The application considered by the Committee sought to vary the wording of Condition 10 to:

“The 11 No. elderly person bungalows forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied by at least one person who is over the age of 55 years old and/or is disabled”.

All other aspects of the proposal were to remain the same as previously permitted, it was only the proposed amendment to this condition that was being assessed under this application.

The application had been presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Bromley had called-in the application and had stated.

‘This would be a fundamental change to the use of these dwellings which needs to be considered by the DMC, in order that all the implications of any decision, may be fully discussed and understood by all’.

Mrs King (Objector) spoke against the application for the following reasons.  

The bungalows had been purpose built to accommodate older people.  The change in the condition would have a significant impact on the amenity value of the existing residents.  The elderly would be fearful of venturing out into the Close due to the toys and other obstacles left lying around. 

Officers advised that, notwithstanding the proposed variation to the wording that had been put forward by the applicant, it was considered that this wording would not meet the tests of a planning condition. As a result, Officers recommended that the condition in fact be removed entirely, resulting in an unrestricted occupancy of the dwellings.

Members expressed the following views:

•        The retrospective change to the condition was unfair on the existing residents. 

•        The change in the condition would impair the quality of life for those residents who had moved in prior to the Housing Association allocating properties to families or tenants outside the original condition. 

•        The change in the condition would affect the amenity value for older residents without children.

It was then proposed by Councillor N.Pace, seconded by Councillor A.Chesterman that the application be deferred for further consideration. 

RESOLVED:

(10 voting for and 3 against)

That planning permission for the removal of the condition be deferred for further consideration.