Agenda item

Land to the rear of Parkdale, Ashby Road, Ibstock, Leicestershire

Councillor D Harrison advised Members that the two items would be presented together.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor J Clarke, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He expressed concern that the issue was still going on. He advised Members that the developers had said that the line the boundary had been moved to was the original one and questioned why a variation application had been submitted if this was the case. He highlighted that the developer was deliberately making a mockery of the authority by constantly varying the original application and having moved the fence had made it difficult for it to be properly maintained, adding that the Council should insist that the fence was turned around so that the existing residents had the front of the panels. He added that the change of the homes from bungalows to two-storey houses had not been considered by the Committee.

Mr L Taylor-Haynes, Objector, addressed the Committee. He advised Members that his dwelling was the closest to the site and that the building had been damaged during the construction. He informed Members that at the site meeting the developer had no intention to change the position of the fence and that they would be happy to sell the properties without the fence. He felt that the developer had total disregard for the neighbours and that the application should be refused due to the loss of amenity and to hide the eyesore would put him out of pocket. He referred to paragraph 66 of the NPPF, which says that applicants should work with those directly affected by proposals.

A motion to refuse the application, on the grounds that it would cause loss of residential amenity, was moved by Councillor V Richichi and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor V Richichi stated that since the original application was permitted there had been significant variations to the development and even though residents had objected to the changes they were not aware as to how to get the applications to come back to Committee. He suggested that a footnote be added to the letters advising residents of the process to have applications called in.

Councillor D Harrison reminded Members that valid planning reasons were required to enable the Committee to refuse an application.

Following questions from Councillor R Adams and J Legrys, the Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that once an application had been permitted any variations to it would require a new application to be submitted that both neighbours and Ward Members were notified of. Ward Members could then choose to call in the application if they felt that there were valid planning reasons to do so. They informed the Committee that this process had been followed on both occasions for both the change from bungalows to two storey dwellings, which the Ward Members at the time had decided not to call in, and for the variation to the boundaries, which had been called in.

Councillor D Harrison advised Members that the applications in front of them had been called in as the Ward Member had considerable concerns over the proposals.

Councillor J Legrys felt that the issue was significant and very complex, and it would affect the residents of the existing properties stating that there were issues with loss of amenity and light, and as heard from the objector impact on the residents’ human rights as damage had been done to his property. He asserted that these were three valid reasons and he supported Councillor V Richichi.

Councillor D Harrison reminded Members that officers were advising that the reasons for refusal were weak; with the best being loss of amenity, and that they should think very carefully before voting.

In response to a question from Councillor R Adams, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised the Members that the case appeared to be both a boundary dispute and a planning issue and confirmed that a boundary dispute was not within the scope of the Committee. Headvised them that refusing the application on the grounds that it would cause loss of residential amenity would be a weak case. He explained that, due to the characteristics of the site, there was a risk that by refusing the current application and solving one amenity issue due to an overbearing fence, by requiring its removal the planning authority could create a different amenity problem by virtue of loss of privacy or overlooking from the new homes.

Councillor M Specht stated that he had requested the deferral and expressed his disappointment at the developer’s treatment of the neighbours adding that if he was a resident of Parkdale he would be insisting on good fencing or taking their fencing down and extending the lawn. He advised that there was no case for overshadowing and that he supported the officer recommendation.

Councillor D Harrison stated that the Committee could not support trespassing.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy E3 of the Local Plan.