6
The Committee received report ES/1929 of the Interim Joint Head of Planning, which related to planning application DC/23/4469/VOC. The application sought retrospective planning permission to retain the dwelling as constructed and rectify the breaches of conditions 2, 8 and 12 where the approved building had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.
As the case officer's minded-to recommendation to approve the application was contrary to Woodbridge Town Council's recommendation to refuse the application the application was presented to the Planning Referral Panel on 23 January 2024, in accordance with the scheme of delegation set out in the East Suffolk Council Constitution, where it was referred to the Committee for determination.
The application was initially considered by the Committee at its meeting on 27 February 2024, where the Committee resolved to defer the application in order to carry out a site visit to view the situation as built. The site visit was undertaken on 23 April 2024 at 10.30am, prior to the meeting.
The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (Major Sites), who was the case officer for the application. The Principal Planner provided updates in responses to queries raised during the site visit; the planning history on the site was outlined and it was confirmed that the parcel of land to the rear of the site was owned by 8 Doric Place.
The Committee was shown photographs taken during the site visit demonstrating the following views:
- Looking towards 6 Doric Place from the flat roof area of 32 Thoroughfare.
- Planting to the rear of the garden of 32 Thoroughfare.
- Looking out from the downstairs cloakroom window at 6 Doric Place.
- Looking out from the first floor bedroom window at 6 Doric Place.
- Looking out from the first floor bathroom window at 6 Doric Place.
- Looking towards 32 Thoroughfare from the rear garden of 6 Doric Place.
The site's location was outlined and the Committee was shown an aerial photograph of the site which demonstrated its proximity to residential properties in Doric Place, Brook Street, and Jacobs Way.
The Committee was shown photographs of the site demonstrating the following views and noting the changes to the approved scheme:
- Changes to the wall at the north-east elevation.
- The north-west and south-east elevations, showing window changes.
- The rear garden as view from within the dwelling.
- Views from the flat roof.
- Zoomed in view taken from the nearest corner of the roof terrace.
- The side elevation of 6 Doric Place taken from within the site.
- The view from the objector's bathroom window.
The Committee was shown drawings of the approved block plan and both the approved and proposed elevations. The Committee was also shown a photograph from the supporting statement demonstrating views from the flat roof and photographs provided by a third party objector showing the garden design of 6 Doric Place. The Principal Planner displayed the approved landscape plan.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as visual amenity and the impact on the conservation area, and the impact on residential amenity. The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chair invited questions to the officers. In response to a question on setting a precedent and undermining previous decisions of the Committee, the Interim Joint Head of Planning said he understood the concerns of members but advised that the Committee was required to determine the application before it in a fair and open way.
The Interim Joint Head of Planning appreciated the Committee's frustration with the retrospective nature of the application but was clear that it must judge the application before it on its merits and noted that there was an opportunity to assess what overlooking has been caused.
In response to further concerns from another member of the Committee regarding the retrospective nature of the application and the precedent approving it may cause, the Interim Joint Head of Planning highlighted there had been a number of planning enforcement cases in the district following the refusal of retrospective planning permission where the refusal had been upheld on appeal, and that these sites had been required to be restored. The Committee was advised that applications cannot be penalised for being retrospective and this was an option available to applicants, albeit a high risk one.
A member of the Committee asked if there had been any scope for enforcement action to have been taken on the site during development. The Principal Planner noted that the development not being in accordance with the approved plans had been highlighted by Planning Enforcement and that an application to make a non-material amendment had been made and refused. The Principal Planner said that as with all enforcement cases, the applicants had the right to submit an application to rectify breaches of planning permission.
A member of the Committee referred to the changes being made as a result of Building Control issues and questioned if the breaches should have been identified at this point. The Principal Planner explained that although the Council provided Building Control services, developers were entitled to use an approved inspector and this had been the case with this development.
The Committee was informed that although changes could be recommended by Building Control as part of a separate regime, any such changes must be approved as part of the planning process. The Interim Joint Head of Planning added that the Council's Building Control team was proactive and constructive working with the Planning team to identify any planning breaches, and that in this instance had no input on the site.
The Chair invited Ms Sue Key-Burr, who objected to the application, to address the Committee. Ms Key-Burr thanked the Committee for visiting the site and hoped it had seen how oppressive the development was for her home, and how much worse it would be if the applicant was able to use the flat roof as a balcony terrace.
Ms Key-Burr said that the vegetation screening installed by the applicant was not permanent and suggested it could be removed in the future. Ms Key-Burr highlighted that the applicant had breached the approved planning permission, noting the planning history on the site and said that the development had not been halted when ordered to do so. Ms Key-Burr stated that the applicant had sought to rectify the breaches with a non-material amendment which was refused, but this was not included in the officer's report.
Ms Key-Burr said she was being continually reported to the Police by the applicant but had been told she had done nothing wrong, and highlighted the applicant's behaviour at the Committee's meeting on 27 February 2024. Ms Key-Burr was of the view that the use of the flat roof as an amenity space would be detrimental to her home's residential amenity and pointed out that Woodbridge Town Council maintained its objection to the application.
Ms Key-Burr considered that the removal of condition 8 of the extant planning permission did not accord with policy SCLP11.2 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and said that users of the public car parks adjacent to the site would also object to the overlooking from the flat roof. Ms Key-Burr urged the Committee to refuse the application.
The Chair invited questions to Ms Key-Burr. A member of the Committee asked if the development resulted in a loss of light to her cloakroom window. Ms Key-Burr confirmed that it did and noted that the utility room and kitchen window were also affected.
In response to a query regarding the first-floor bathroom window, Ms Key-Burr said that the glass was not frosted, having not been replaced due to the historic nature of the window, but that a film had been applied to reduce the window's transparency. Ms Key-Burr advised that when the bathroom light was on, the room's interior was visible through this film.
The Chair invited Ms April Groen, the applicant, to address the Committee. Ms Groen was accompanied by Ms Liz Beighton, her agent. Ms Groen thanked the Committee for visiting the site and observing the relationship between her property and 6 Doric Place. Ms Groen said that she had never intended to make a retrospective application and reiterated that the changes to the scheme had been a result of issues raised by Building Control during the development.
Ms Groen pointed out that the report recommended approval of the application; she noted the planning history on the site but said that none of these applications had benefitted from a site visit as the dwelling had not been constructed at that point. Ms Groen considered that the Committee would have observed there is no significant overlooking of 6 Doric Place and the two dwellings could co-exist harmoniously. Ms Groen advised that the windows of 6 Doric Place affected by the development were not primary windows and gave examples of a similar scheme being allowed in Felixstowe.
Ms Groen said that she had engaged with her neighbours at 4, 5 and 6 Doric Place and had made changes to the initial design of the property in response to feedback from Ms Key-Burr; the house had been designed to provide a six-metre gap from the bathroom window of 6 Doric Place and Ms Groen said that the Committee would have observed this, which challenged Ms Key-Burr's comment that there was only a one-metre gap.
Ms Groen highlighted that the dwelling had a high energy rating and that she and her husband were quiet neighbours. Mrs Groen considered that she had created a high quality home that did not adversely impact on their neighbours and hoped that tensions would dissipate after the application was determined.
A member of the Committee referred to Ms Groen's comments at the Committee's meeting on 27 February 2024 about having experience of developing properties, and queried why she had chosen to disregard the conditions of the extant planning permission. Ms Groen said that although she had experience with self-build properties, she was not a housing developer and reiterated that it had not been her intention to mislead anyone.
Ms Groen explained that the change to include bifold doors onto the flat roof was required as part of the heat release system and this in turn required the balustrade for safety reasons. Ms Groen said that she had attempted to resolve this as a minor amendment initially, noting the significant opposition to the scheme from neighbours and reiterating the circumstances that had led to the retrospective application.
Another member of the Committee sought clarity from Ms Groen on the comments relating to the distance between properties. Ms Groen explained that the initial design of the dwelling had been amended to curve the building away from 6 Doric Place in response to concerns raised about the impact, and was now six metres away at its nearest point.
Ms Groen confirmed that if approved, the flat roof terrace would be used for minimal leisure activity, such as sitting out and having a drink in the evening. Ms Groen said there was no great intention to use the terrace area but she wanted to be confident to be allowed to get onto it and water any plants.
A member of the Committee questioned at what point Ms Groen had identified the planning breaches to the Council. Ms Beighton, speaking for Ms Groen, confirmed that a certain level of access had always been intended and that the breaches would have first been brought to the Council's attention when the non-material amendment application was made.
Another member of the Committee asked if Ms Groen and Ms Beighton concurred that the development had created overlooking of 6 Doric Place. Ms Beighton reminded the Committee that it was not considering the principle of development, including the impact of windows, as this position had been endorsed by the Council when it granted the extant planning permission. Ms Beighton said that the Committee was specifically considering the impact of the use of the flat roof terrace and if it caused significant overlooking and a significant loss of amenity. Ms Beighton noted that the site was located in a built up urban area where overlooking already existed.
In response to a query on if a transparent balustrade had been required, Ms Groen said there had been no specification on this element and what had been chosen was based on similar balustrades in the area. When asked by a member of the Committee if she had considered that an alternative balustrade would have reduced overlooking, Ms Groen commented that she had not and highlighted that her property was overlooked by the bathroom window of 6 Doric Place.
A member of the Committee questioned the need to go outside to close the bifold doors. Ms Groen explained that this due to the design of the doors.
In response to queries from a member of the Committee on any recent consultation with neighbours and if the balustrades could be made opaque, Ms Groen said she had recently discussed the application with neighbours and advised that the balustrade could be made opaque where it faced 6 Doric Place, and was willing to do so if this addressed Ms Key-Burr's issues.
A member of the Committee sought clarity from officers on the intent of the flat roof in the approved application. The Interim Joint Head of Planning clarified that there was no indication on the approved plans that there would be access onto the flat roof and confirmed that the introduction of the bifold doors and balustrade was in conflict with the extant planning permission.
Another member of the Committee asked what conditions, if any, could be applied to the balustrade. The Interim Joint Head of Planning advised the Committee that it was required to determine the application that was before it and did not have the power to redesign the scheme. The Interim Joint Head of Planning explained that although it was possible to impose conditions on balconies in respect of privacy, it was more difficult to achieve this on a retrospective application; the Committee was advised that a time-limited condition could be added by way of recommendation.
In response to a further question from the Committee about restricting the use of part of the flat roof, the Interim Joint Head of Planning was hesitant to advise this course of action as it would be a material change to the proposed scheme.
The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it. A member of the Committee expressed his concern about the use of the flat roof terrace; he acknowledged the applicant's assurance that it would be used for low-level amenity activities but cautioned this could change in the future. The Member considered that the site visit demonstrated there was overlooking from the flat roof terrace to the amenity space of 6 Doric Place and was of the view it was therefore difficult to approve the application. The Member stated his frustration with the retrospective nature of the application and said he was unable to support it.
Another member of the Committee referenced the site visit and considered that although there was overlooking, there would not cause a significant impact and this would lessen as the screening planting established itself. The Member was more concerned about the impact of any noise emanating from the use of the flat roof terrace and suggested that should the application be granted, noise levels be restricted by condition.
Other members of the Committee spoke on the application, citing the issue of overlooking and how this could be solved by making part of the balustrade opaque and/or higher. One member of the Committee queried the applicant's choice of a transparent balustrade.
During debate, it became apparent that the majority of the Committee were minded to refuse the application and no proposal for the officer's recommendation was forthcoming; the Chair indicated an intention to propose a motion to refuse the application. The Interim Joint Head of Planning advised that, based on the issues raised by the Committee by debate, it could resolve to refuse the application on the grounds it was contrary to policies SCLP11.2(a) (privacy/overlooking) and SCLP11.1(e) (impact on the amenity of the wider environment) of the Local Plan, along with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in respect of the impact of the amenity of existing users.
Following further debate to formulate a recommendation to refuse the application, it was on the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Smithson, and by a majority vote
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED on the grounds that it is contrary to policy SCLP11.2(a) of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in that the development causes overlooking between both the proposed development and the neighbouring development at 6 Doric Place.
NOTE: following the conclusion of this item the Chair adjourned the meeting for a short break. The meeting was adjourned at 3.23pm and was reconvened at 3.35pm.