Agenda item

(Councillor Magee, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The case officer reminded the Committee that the application had previously been listed for consideration at the Planning Committee of 17th April. However, it had been withdrawn from the agenda to allow full consideration of the submission received from the applicant’s legal representative prior to the meeting. 

            She highlighted that the application sought to remove Condition no.7 from planning permission LA04/2015/1102/F. This condition related to the occupancy of the new dwelling unit created as a result of the subdivision of 42 Strathmore Park, as follows:

‘The occupancy of dwelling No.42A as indicated on drawing No.03 shall be limited to direct family members of the occupants of dwelling No.42. A direct family member shall be a spouse, parent or sibling, son or daughter and shall include any dependents of that person or a widow or widower of such a person.’

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal had been received from the applicant:

·        They wished to address the new Planning Committee and new Director of Planning and Building Control;

·        Outlined a timeline of events of previous planning application LA04/2015/1102/F;

·        Raised concerns in relation to the occupancy condition attached to planning permission granted under LA04/2015/1102/F;

·        Highlighted existing overlooking into neighbouring properties with photographic evidence provided; and

·        The Applicant was being harshly treated.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

            She highlighted that the case officer’s report explained how the occupancy condition had met the 6 tests of being ‘Necessary, Relevant to Planning, Relevant to the Proposal, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable’ under paragraphs 9.2.4.

            She explained that, after assessment, it had been recommended for refusal on the grounds that:

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments and Policy LC 1 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7: Safeguarding the Character of Established Areas in that it would, if permitted, result in unacceptable damage to the local character and environmental quality of the established residential area, by reason of additional in-curtilage parking, a second new access and sub-division of the curtilage resulting in a plot size which would be out of character with the pattern of development in the area and would set an undesirable precedent; and

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy QD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments in that the proposed development would, if permitted, result in an adverse impact on residential amenity of prospective occupants by way of inter-overlooking between the properties into and out of the resulting houses at the rear.

            The Committee received a representation from Councillor Campbell in objection to the case officer’s recommendation for refusal. She pointed out that the footprint of the properties had not changed, the area was of mixed tenure, the property next door had a bungalow in its back garden, the applicant’s son could not get a mortgage in the future based on the occupancy condition and the development provided a quality residential environment. She suggested that the recommendation to refuse the application should be overruled by the Committee, as the condition on the property was unreasonable and the Committee should consider removing the occupancy condition.

            The Committee received representation from Mrs. A. Stewart, Mr. C. Dunford and Mr. A. Acheson.

            Mr. Dunford endorsed the comments outlined by Councillor Campbell and highlighted that he had made a written submission, on behalf of the applicant, against the case officer’s recommendation for refusal.  He suggested that there were contradictory statements in the case officer’s assessment of the development, such as ‘overlooking’ being stated as ‘not a main concern’ in January, 2017, and he questioned the consistency of how planning policy had been applied to the proposal.

            He suggested that there was already precedent permitting similar developments such as Upper Malone Road (reference Z/2006/2070/F) and Cleaver Avenue (reference Z/2004/2834/F) as outlined in his written submission, which pre dated the amendment to PPS7, and both cases had been approved without conditions.

            Mr. Acheson referred to Planning Policies QD1 of PPS7 and LC1 of the addendum. He stated that the relevant section of QD1 for this application stated that “there is no unacceptable adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance” and the site had had houses on it for over 50 years with no adverse affect between neighbouring properties.

            He suggested that whether people were related or not had no effect on the issues raised by the case officer such as density, pattern of development, size, car parking, access, sub-division and plot site. 

            Mrs. Stewart suggested that the retrospective application had established the development as two semi-detached houses with separate gardens. She suggested that the development was not out of character in the area and her application should not be treated differently. She suggested that the occupancy condition was unreasonable, unfair and placed a restriction on her family for the future.

            During discussion, the case officer clarified that the assessment of overlooking at the site had not changed.

            The Committee refused the application for the reasons as set out in the case officer’s report and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the refusal.

(Councillor Magee returned to the Committee table at this point.)