Evidence of Breach of Condition 2 - Planning Applications: HS/FA/12/00952

Transcription

1 Evidence of Breach of Condition 2 - Planning Applications: HS/FA/12/ The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 11/396/1/A, 11/396/2 1. Enforcement on this area would depend ultimately on a standard of evidence sufficient to satisfy a court. The view of our Legal Service is that this may be challenging. Could you please forward your evidence to Mrs Barkshire-Jones so she can assess it in this context. The normal course of events in a case like this is to request reinstatement. Introduction: This document has been produced at the request of Hastings Borough Council, as it has been stated that the Council cannot make enforcement action stand without sufficient evidence of breaches of planning conditions that would stand up in Court. This document covers the breach of Condition 2 that was attached to planning permission HS/FA/12/ It has been confirmed that the proposed development to build a two storey holiday let, on the site of a previously demolished bungalow, does not conform to the approved plans. A retrospective planning application to regularise the building was submitted on 15 May 2014 and in spite of the case officer s recommendation for approval, was refused unanimously by members of the planning committee on 18 June Since the planning committee meeting it has been determined that the building does not even conform to the amended plans and is in fact 55 cm taller than the revised plans. It has been stated by the Development Control Manager that the amendments outlined on drawing number /06A were in his opinion truly minor but the undisclosed height difference from the revised plans cannot be classed as minor and a Planning Contravention Notice was issued on 1 July The site owners, Mr and Mrs Guilliard, were given 21 days to respond to the notice and at this stage it is unknown what their response has been. We have been informed that the site owners have two options open to them to regularise the building: 1. To take the refused application, HS/FA/14/00406 to appeal, and to let the Secretary of State determine whether the application should have been approved. 2. To submit another retrospective planning application for the height difference that was not outlined in the previously refused retrospective planning application. It is our opinion, after taking external advice, that a further retrospective planning application, to address the height difference only, will not regularise the other amendments to the building that have been completed without planning permission. A retrospective planning application for all amendments, including the height difference could be submitted as it is a revised plan, but it could not be classed as a minor amendment. It is our opinion that the developers had no intention of conforming to the approved plans (11.396/1/A) and that amended plans, submitted with planning application: HS/CD/13/00792, was always intended to be their baseline. A revised drawing, /03, dated March 2013, was submitted on 8 October 2013 with a Discharge of Condition Application in respect of Conditions 4 and 5 of planning application: HS/FA/12/

2 Application: HS/CD/13/00792 Discharge of Condition 4 (colour and render) and Condition 5 (screening) of application HS/FA/12/00952 Paid: Application Dated: 8 Oct 2013 Application Received: 9 Oct 2013 Application not validated until 31 Dec 2013 as there was no submitted evidence regarding tree screening and no sample of render included. Not sure why the application was submitted for discharge other than they had already started the development 1 October Drawing dated March 2013 Amendments marked in red wiggly lines. Proposed dedicated parking Space New foul drainage to be connected to existing system Rainwater harvesting system to be connected to existing rainwater waste system incase [sic] of overflow Proposed refuse storage area Proposed ramped access approach to principal entrance Paved area serving disabled access and refuse collection to be drained into new surface water system via gulleys Proposed refuse storage area Where access ramps are provided ensure ramps are laid to a fall of no greater than 1:12 and individual flights no longer than 5m for gradients. Ramp is to have an unobstructed width of at least 900mm. Finished surface to be firm and even and finished in a non-slip material 2

3 Only one tree is shown on North East corner. Amendment proposals are already shown on the new plans, and the balcony area has been extended. South West Elevation Balcony Extended North West Elevation Balcony Extended North East Elevation Balcony Extended South East Elevation Balcony Extended Car parking space included on corner of existing building Approved Drawing /1/A has been marked as Superseded ; this is incorrect as drawing number: /03 had not been approved through the planning process. 3

4 Drawing B - Dated March 2013 Amended as per LABCO requirements Jan 14. Amendments marked in red wiggly lines. Additional amendments that are outside of the redline area of the proposed two storey holiday let are included on this drawing. Existing FW & SW system connected to existing sewer - not included on /03 Proposed paved area serving route from dedicated parking space to building entrance to be laid to a maximum gradient no greater than 1:12 and individual flights no longer than 5m for gradients. All routes to have an unobstructed width of at least 900mm. Finished surface to be firm and even and finished in a non-slip material not included on /03 Paved access to Holiday Let shaded in green - not included on /03 Proposed tree and foliage screening as per Planning Officers requirements - not included on /03 South West Elevation Windows Removed. Parking space as /03 Additional tree screening is included on this drawing but they do not relate to the garden area of the proposed property and relate to additional screening on an adjacent site. The disabled access has not been approved but the case officer has agreed that the screening proposal is acceptable. The proposed tree and hedge screening is not within the redline area of the site and is not part of the approved plan: /1A. 4

5 HS/FA/14/ Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/12/ Minor amendment showing change of ground floor plan, additional & altered window positions & extended balcony. (Retrospective) Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY Application Dated: 14 May 2014 Application Received: 15 May 2014 Consolation Period: 16 May June 2014 Application Fee: Neighbour Notification List: 2 Households; 36 Collier Road, Rocklands Cottage (which is owned by the Guilliards) Consultees: Highways, Bins HWAONB, Arch, Natural England, English Heritage Application Validated: Notes: 2 nd Neighbour Notification List: 2 Households; 36 Collier Road, Rocklands Cottage (which is owned by the Guilliards) plus the 25 people who had written in prior to the drawings being changed. Consultation Period: 21 May June 2014 later confirmed to be 13 June 2014 Drawing number: /06, dated May 2014, was originally submitted with planning application HS/FA/14/00406 The following amendments were marked in red wiggly lines and were outside of the redline area of the planning application to be determined: Existing FW Flow connected to twin pumping system (4300L) with 24hr backup system connected to existing sewer Proposed dedicated parking space Rainwater harvesting system overflow to be connected to mains sewerage system as land deemed unsuitable for soakaways wording revised from connection to rainwater waste system to mains sewerage system 5

6 Proposed paved area serving route from dedicated parking space to building entrance to be laid to a maximum gradient no greater than 1:12 and individual flights no longer than 5m for gradients. All routes to have an unobstructed width of at least 900mm. Finished surface to be firm and even and finished in a non-slip material Proposed area provided for emergency service vehicle - not included on /03 or 03B South West Elevation French Doors changed to Windows; Windows Overlooking Hastings Country Park Removed this appears to be incorrect as recent photographs show that there are definitely two windows facing the East Hill. This conforms to the approved plans, so it is unknown why the subsequent amended plans removed the window from the plans when it is evidentially still there. North West Elevation New Windows Installed to Overlook Rocklands Park The recess to the south west elevation of the ground floor has been squared off, enlarging bedroom 2. The previously approved French doors leading out onto a terraced area have now been replaced with a window and the terraced area has been deleted. Even though planning regulation has been updated, and new legislations have been brought in that make the planning procedures simpler and allow a previously approved planning permission to be varied, or amended, the local planning department still has to make regard to published government guidelines. It was obvious from this retrospective planning application, to vary Condition 2 of the Planning Approval HS/FA/12/00952, that government guidelines had not being followed and that this application should have been submitted as a new standalone planning application albeit to be decided under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as it was a retrospective planning application. There is no record of its consideration of the proposed amendment and how the Local Planning Authority reached the conclusion that it should have been treated as minor? The application had been submitted retrospectively, and there was no record of a pre-application consultation taking place prior to the application being registered. The Local Planning Authority stipulate that pre-application discussion are mandatory, between the applicant and the planning department, so it can be determined whether the amendments are non material or material or whether an application for full planning permission should be sought. There were amendments included on the plans that were included on the previously submitted Discharge of Conditions application HS/CD/13/00792 that were irrelevant to the application on the table. These amendments, some of which were highlighted with red wiggly lines, were not included within the application description and were not noted on any documentation. At the time of the application being submitted it was not understood whether these amendments were requested retrospectively or whether they were additional amendments to be considered as part of this application HS/FA/14/ The submitted plans were unclear, and did not contain either text on the drawing or additional documentation that explained what the exact changes were that differed from the approved plans. The significance of the changes was played down as being insignificant when they were significant increases which would have taken them out of the remit of minor material amendments. There were no exact measurements on the drawings only scale drawings which were measured with a scale ruler. Location plan This should be based on an up-to-date map at an identified standard metric scale (typically 1:1250 or 1:2500, but wherever possible the plan should be scaled to fit onto A4 or A3 size paper) and detailed enough to identify sufficient roads and/or buildings on land adjoining the application site to ensure that the exact location of the application site is clear. The site of the development must be edged or shaded in red 6

7 and any other adjoining land owned or controlled by you edged or shaded blue. A north point must be shown on the plan. Block plan (the same as the location plan but on a larger scale) A block plan should be submitted. The legislation requires three copies plus the original (unless submitted electronically). The block plan should be drawn at an identified standard metric scale (1:200-1:500). It should accurately show: a) The direction of North b) The proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to the boundaries and the following, unless these would NOT influence or be affected by the proposed development: 1) All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access arrangements 2) All public rights of way crossing or adjoining the site 3) The position of all trees on the site, and those on adjacent land 4) The extent and type of any hard surfacing and 5) Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed Floor plan and elevations These plans should be at a scale of not less than 1:100. They should indicate clearly what is proposed and how it relates to the existing dwelling. The elevation drawings should show: What each side of the newly altered building would look like (known as the elevations) Indicate the size and type of windows, doors etc The external building materials to be used The extension must be highlighted by colour or shading The floor plans should: Identify the existing uses of the rooms in the building, e.g. lounge, kitchen, bedroom etc. and also the intended use of the new room(s) Dimensions (external) are only required for the extension Where a single storey extension is to be added to a two-storey building, only the floor with the extension need be detailed The extension must be highlighted by colour or shading The materials to be used (roof, elevation, windows and doors) must be described by type and colour; the easiest way is just by 'Roof to be tiles to match existing' or 'Windows to be painted soft wood'. In certain circumstances, such as an extension on the side of a building, it may be necessary to produce a 'street scene' (i.e. a drawing showing the original property, the extension and the adjoining buildings as viewed from the road) so that the impact of the new extension on the street can be considered. For some simple extension, a single drawing showing both the existing and the new works may be acceptable, but it is probable easier to produce separate drawings so there is no confusion. The only mention to the dimensions of the amendments submitted for approval was in the case officer s committee report. It is not known how these dimensions were determined as there is no covering letter or from the applicants, and there are no dimensions on any of the submitted drawings. It is also not known whether the sizes were submitted by the applicant or whether they were calculated by the case officer prior to compiling their report. 7

8 Alterations to the previously approved scheme include the following amendments: The ground floor window to the south west elevation, serving bedroom 1 (master bedroom), is to be blocked up and a new window is to be installed at first floor level in the north east elevation. The recess to the south west elevation of the ground floor is to be squared off, infilling an area measuring 1105mm x 3400mm and enlarging bedroom 2. The previously approved French doors leading out onto a terraced area have now been replaced with a window and the terraced area deleted. The balcony to the south west elevation is to be extended by 3.4m, over the enlarged bedroom and it will meet the rear elevation corner. The balcony will now extend along the full depth of the south west elevation. The depth of the balconies to the south east and south west elevations is to be increased in depth from 2m to 2.9m. Additional screening is to be planted to the north west of the building and to sections of the south west boundary. The drawing reflected additional changes from the drawing submitted with application HS/CD/13/00792; an additional window had been installed in the north-east elevation; the ground floor bedroom, on the south-west elevation has been extended and the terrace area removed. The originally proposed French doors had been replaced by a window. Drawing indicated that a window in the south-west elevation on the ground floor was to be negated but in recent photographs taken it is evident that the window is still there. This window conforms to the approved plans, but if the amended planning application had been approved then it would have been unauthorised. South-west Elevation Showing Two Windows 8

9 Text states Window Overlooking Country Park to be Removed The balcony size has been increased to 2.9 metres but the balcony did not extend the full width of the property on the south-west elevation. The property appears to have been cut into the bank and supports installed into the position of the Iron Age Hill Fort. There was no Design and Access Statement submitted with this application, and the original plan /1A, approved under application: HS/FA/12/00952 was not submitted showing the amended changes marked in red. This is the usual practice with amended plans so that the case officer, or interested parties, can see at a glance what changes are to be made that deviate from the approved plans. A new drawing was submitted with the application, drawing number: /06, which was supposedly replaced on 21 May 2014, as the drawing was submitted with errors. The application form, dated 14/05/2014, Section 6 Condition(s) Removal stated: Please state why you wish the condition(s) to be removed or changed: Retrospective Change of Ground Floor Plan, Additional and Altered Window and Extended Balcony If you wish the existing conditions to be changed, please state how you wish the conditions to be varied: To be carried out in Accordance with Amended Plans /6 Drawing: /06 showed additional changes to drawing number /03B dated March North East Elevation shows an additional window with text stating New Window Installed to Overlook Rocklands Park South West Elevation shows existing French doors to be replaced with window Approved French Doors Omitted and New Windows Installed /06 shows the proposed ground floor plan where the terrace area outside of bedroom two has been omitted and bedroom two has been extended on the south-west corner. The area has been marked as a revision but was not clear what the revision were other than it is an extension that does not appear on /1A. The window in bedroom one seems to have been bricked up. The proposed first floor plan shows the increased balcony size. The proposed car parking space has moved to be in line with the existing building Rocklands House. On 21 May 2014, five days into the consultation period, a further drawing was submitted by the applicants as it was discovered that the drawings submitted with the application pack were incorrect and did not reflect the changes to the original approval that needed ratifying. Drawing number: /06A was 9

10 submitted for approval on 21 May 2014, but was not shown on the online system until 10 June 2014 when the officer s committee report was published. This left the objector s at a disadvantage as they were unable to make comments on the new plans as the officer s decision had already been made. The revised drawing shows the amendments to the property marked in red wiggly lines, but there were still no clear descriptions on what was actually proposed. There is a red wiggly line around an opening on the north-west elevation but it is not clear whether it is a door or a window. The drawing showing the north-west elevation seems to show a double door opening but this is not included as an amendment. Recent photographs taken seem to show it as a single door opening and not a double door. Drawing Number: /06 shows the door to be a double door and not a single door The balcony area is shown to extend the whole of the south-east elevation, which was not shown on drawing /06 the balcony on the previous drawing stopped at the position of bedroom 2 on the ground floor and the kitchen on the first floor. This is in the position that the original terrace was before bedroom 2 was extended. There is a balcony support in the south-east corner, which is obviously encroaching on the Iron Age Hill Fort. The trees and shrubs that were on the south-west boundary and to the rear of the property have been stripped bare and there is evidence from Clive Mayhew, the tree specialist that the developers have cut into the bank, and have installed a retaining structure. There was a mention to the developers cutting into the bank on the officer s committee report. 10

11 Drawing Number: /06A, dated May 2014, Showing Extended Balcony There is another amendment to the approved plans which does not seem to have been mentioned or address but the site levels between the existing property Rocklands House and the old bungalow site seems to have been lowered to provide an access route for site machinery. HS/FA/12/ Proposed Demolition of current holiday let and replacement of a new holiday let REFUSED: 19 July 2012 Case Officer: Mrs R Bishop Application Dated: 28 May 2012 Application Received: 29 May 2012 Advertisement Date: 22 June 2012 Consolation Period: 14 Jun Jul 2012 Application Fee: Neighbour Notification List: Rocklands Cottage (which is owned by the Guilliards) Consultees: High Weald AONB; County Archaeology Application Validated: 8 June 2012 Conservation Area: Yes Old Town Policies and Constraints: Ancient Monument East Hill Iron Age Hill Fort High Weald AONB Country Park Planning Portal Reference Number: PP Comment: PP Design and Access Statement mentioned in Application Form not in pack AONB 29/05/12 ok and plotted Julie Site Visit Note Check planning history re higher roof (DCQ?) main building (TT) Check from CP footpath below site Site: Boundary treatment: Level of adjacent property: Hedge to side garden m Shrubs to rear Back/shrubs/trees to north side Back/hedge C2m to front and shrubs Steps from office site' The case officer during a site visit stated that there was a hedge to the side garden that was between 1 and 1.5 metres wide and that there were steps from the office site (Rocklands House). 11

12 The old bungalow was accessed up a flight of five steps, which can be seen in the above drawing numbered: 3318/200.EX, submitted with planning application: HS/FA/08/ It is estimated that the height difference between the two ground levels is between 120 cm to 150 cm. It has to be noted that this is not in fact the rear elevation of the property it is in fact the front elevation of the property. The case officer, when determining this application, was confused as she thought that the secluded garden area was to the rear of the property. An identical drawing to the one above and numbered: 3647-EX was submitted with planning application HS/FA/10/00492, but this time was published in colour. The drawing still states that it is the Rear Elevation and not the front of the property. 12

13 This drawing also numbered: EX was submitted with planning application HS/FA/10/00492 and describes, what was previously recorded as being the Rear Elevation, as being the Front Elevation. Two completely contradicting drawings were submitted with the same application. The above drawing is /2A, which was submitted with planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 and is included on the Decision Notice. This is one of the approved plans. This drawing also shows the ground levels between the two properties to be about 120 cm, which would conform to plan number: EX. 13

14 Above is a photograph of the old bungalow showing the steps leading down to the adjacent property. These steps are mentioned in the officer s delegated report for application: HS/FA/12/00952 To the west of the parking/turning area is a path which leads to a set of steps which give access to the site single storey building which is the subject of this application. Drawing number: /03B shows a disabled access to the new storey property which runs from a proposed dedicated car parking space at the corner of the existing building, Rocklands House. The proposed disabled access is a series of ramps laid to a maximum gradient no greater than 1:12 and that the individual flights are no longer than 5 metres for gradients. It is obvious that these gradients were to accommodate a difference in site levels between the two properties. Recent photographs show that the difference in height levels has been reduced. An eye witness account states that the difference in levels between the two properties to be a slight gradient. There was a gentle gradient running down from the building site to the area outside the Victorian house. It would appear that the height levels between the two properties have been reduced by removing soil from the higher level of the old bungalow and reducing the levelling the Site so that the two properties are 14

15 accessible by a sloped access from the car parking area of the original house. This would explain the reason for the 1 metre/1.5 metre width hedge that was to be increased in Condition 5 of planning approval HS/FA/12/00952, being removed completely. The attached photograph shows that the hedge to be a significant height to stop overlooking from the old bungalow to the existing property. It is stated in a statement made by Mrs Guilliard that her holiday guests liked the secluded garden area and the privacy. This statement is no longer applicable as the garden area is now in full view from the existing property and the adjacent caravan park. The windows on the new property do not conform to the approved plans as it is stated that they are bifolding doors. The design is not considered to be overbearing, and it is considered that the contemporary building with rendered walls and bi-fold doors would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There is a tree lined bank to the rear and mature dense hedges around and in line with the recommendation in the Heritage Statement a condition has been added to improve screening by planting. This would provide further screening in relation to the existing footpaths. This drawing numbered: /06. The windows in this drawing bear no relationship to what is actually there, see previous drawing. There are 11 sections to the windows on the upper storey and 7 sections on the lower level. The windows actually installed show four sections in each and do not appear to be bifolding doors. 15

16 Above is a photograph showing the hedge screening that separated the existing properties from the old bungalow. It is evidence that the hedge screening was significant to screen the bungalow from the existing properties creating privacy which was enjoyed by Rocklands private holiday guests. The screening to the rear seems to be at the height of the second storey on the adjacent property. This levelling must have involved removing a great deal of soil from the site of the proposed new building, and must have entailed some sort of encroaching on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and interfered with potential archaeologic artefact. Scheduled Ancient Monument - (Iron Age Cliff Castle and site of St George s Churchyard on East Hill SAM 12870) extends from the south-west boundary and across the garden area of the proposed property. Planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 was approved as it was stated by the applicants that the property was to be on the same footprint as the original bungalow and that no landscaping proposals were to be made to the garden area. This is incorrect as the property has been extended significantly and has encroached onto the Scheduled Ancient Monument ; a significant hedge was removed during construction without the benefit of a licence from English Heritage and now there is evidence of a levelling of the site. The unauthorised Solar Panels, installed onto the Scheduled Ancient Monument can be viewed through the hedge. Standalone solar panels installations (panels not on a building) All the following conditions must be observed: Panels on a building should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the amenity of the area. When no longer needed for microgeneration panels should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. All the following limits must be met: Only the first standalone solar installation will be permitted development. Further installations will require planning permission. No part of the installation should be higher than four metres The installation should be at least 5 m from the boundary of the property The size of the array should be no more than 9 square metres or 3 m wide by 3 m deep Panels should not be installed within boundary of a listed building or a scheduled monument 16

17 If your property is in a conservation area, or in a World Heritage Site, no part of the solar installation should be nearer to any highway bounding the house than the part of the house that is nearest to that highway. Google Earth Map showing the Solar Panels installed to the north of the old bungalow site. These solar panels were installed without planning permission. Planning Strategy Policies Map The Hastings Local Plan (emerging) Policies map for Rocklands Caravan Park shows the Scheduled Ancient Monument to extend across the garden area of the now demolished bungalow and into the garden area of the existing property, Rocklands House. This is where the row of unauthorised solar panels have been installed. 17

18 This is the Planning Map for Rocklands Caravan Park overlaid onto a Google Earth image. Drawing Number: /06A dated May The red wriggly lines have been removed from the additional amendments proposed within this application. It was stated by the Development Control Manager that these amendments were to be ignored by the planning committee members when forming their decision. This was confirmed by the Borough Solicitor. This advice goes against previous legal opinions from the Council s Counsel, Robert Walton and Planning Consultant, Dick Harman that it is not how the development is described it is what is on the approved plans that matter. 18

19 Richard Harman, Planning Consultant, dated 16 November 2009 My understanding has always been that what is important is what is shown on the approved plans not the description of the development When planning applications in Hawthorn Road, Hastings, TN35 5HW were presented as amendments to a previously approved plan the council s barrister and the council s planning consultant both stated that the FA in the title meant that it had been treated, not as an amendment but as a free standing planning application to be judged in its own right against the Development Plan and other relevant policies. Land at Hawthorn Road, Hastings, Hastings Borough Council - Robert Walton, Landmark Chambers, dated 24 February 2010 In my view, permission HA/FA/08/868 is (like the three other amendment permission referred to under issue 1 above) a free-standing permission capable of implementation. It authorises the development shown on the plans, which are incorporated by reference into the permission. I do not consider the fact that the application was promoted as an amendment to a previous scheme alters this analysis. An additional amendment is proposed in the form of a Proposed area provided for the emergency service vehicle. This amendment is not on the site of the proposed holiday let and is outside of the redline area of the application site. The proposed car parking space has been moved to be in line with the existing property Rocklands House. The revised drawing showed the balcony area to be increased the whole width of the south-west elevation, which was not evident on the previously submitted plan /06. Nowhere within the submitted documentation does it state what type of surface is to be installed under the balcony area on the ground floor level, whether it is to be grassed or have a hard surface of some kind. Archaeology South East did not object to this planning application as they believed that the landscaping to the garden area had been negated. This is obviously incorrect as the ground levels between the two properties have been reduced and the hedgerows on the south-west and north-east boundaries removed. There must have been significant excavations to remove the mature hedgerows and trees. Lynne Okines Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group 15 September