Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overlooking and overbearing impact on residential amenity. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.    

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the partly retrospective application was for the treatment of the garden areas at Plots 52-56 Field Farm Lane, Buckley.  The application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee to allow negotiations to take place with the applicant following concerns raised at the site visit held on 12 May 2014.  Discussions had taken place and had resulted in the applicant now proposing a reduced raised platform area at the rear of Plots 55 and 56 Field Farm Lane with the garden area being at a lower level instead of the tiered gardens which were part of the previous application. 

                        Mr. N. Mellan, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He detailed the differences in the schemes which included the new proposals for a raised area at 55 and 56 Field Farm Lane with steps down to the garden area instead of the terraced garden area, with a two metre high fence around the garden.  It was unlikely that residents would use the raised area and would only be used as an access to the garden area and the proposed screening, which would remain in perpetuity, would mean that the property at Field Farm would not be overlooked.  The amended proposal to deal with the differing levels of the site was in accordance with local and national policy and the applicant had no objection to the removal of permitted development rights.             

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was not seconded.  Councillor Richard Jones proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, indicated that she would give her comments on the proposal and those of Mrs. Biffin (the resident of Field Farm) who had been unable to attend this meeting to address the Committee.  Councillor Ellis said that Mrs. Biffin felt that the application would not be before the Committee if plot 56 had been sited in the correct position.  She indicated that it was situated 5.5 metres too close to Field Farm and created an overlooking issue from the garden of the property into the bedrooms of Field Farm.  Discussions had not taken place with Mrs. Biffin on the design of the garden which had been created without planning permission.  She commented on GPS maps which she felt showed an incorrect location of Field Farm, which officers had disagreed with, and said that the amended house type for plot 56 did not accord with the original house layout and this was indicated on the original plan which showed a path running alongside plot 56.  Councillor Ellis referred to Local Planning Guidance Note 2 and Policy GEN1 on space around dwellings and said that the proposal did not comply with the guidelines.  She added that if the application was approved, she requested that an additional condition be included to extend the six foot high fence to the whole of the garden area of 56 Field Farm Lane. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised Members that the application before the Committee was not for the siting of the dwelling but was for the earthworks for the garden area.  He added that the issues raised were enforcement issues and the location of the property should not form part of the Committee’s decision. 

            Councillor Richard Jones felt that by creating the earthworks, it would extend the living space which should be refused.  Councillor Owen Thomas raised concern about the design of the properties at 55 and 56 Field Farm Lane. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that negotiations had taken place with the applicant following the site visit held on 12 May 2014.  The amended scheme did not propose the retention of the sloping area but had been altered and adapted so the top fence line would be reduced to 1.5 metres and would allow access to the remainder of the garden at the lower level.  The proposal would prevent overlooking into Field Farm and was a substantial improvement on the original scheme and would address the concerns raised. 

            In summing up, Councillor Jones said that the original application had been approved with sloping garden areas.  He felt that an application should come forward which was more in line with what had originally been approved which was more acceptable to the people that it was affecting.  His reasons for the proposal of refusal were overlooking and overbearing impact on residential amenity.

            The Development Manager stated that there had to be a level area outside the rear doors to allow access and suggested that what was being proposed was better in terms of  amenity as it would be step down from the raised platform into the garden area at the lower level. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overlooking and overbearing impact on residential amenity.