-
Agenda item
Land rear of 23 Martineau Lane (HS/FA/21/00712)
Minutes:
Erection of two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part retrospective)
Application No.
HS/FA/21/00712
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes - 50 letters of objection; 30 letters of support; and 1 petition of objection.
Ms Fellows, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application for erection of two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part retrospective).
The Senior Planning Officer reported that three late representations were received, all objecting to the application.
The representations raised questions in respect of the officer’s report and assessment of the application. The representations also raised issues regarding retaining walls in breach of Section 5 of the Hastings Borough Council Act 1988 and the barristers report referred to in the officer’s report, but which is not in the public domain. However, the matters relating to the retaining wall and barrister’s report are not material considerations in regard to the application.
The application seeks to regularise the development that has been built on the site. An application for a similar development was approved in 2017 and during construction amendments were been made and therefore the dwelling is not built-in accordance with the approved 2017 application. The difference between the two applications relates to soft landscaping around the dwelling house.
In 2018 a discharge of condition relating to hard landscaping was approved and in 2020 a revised landscaping scheme was submitted, which was assessed to contain changes which would be too significant for consideration under that application type. It was subsequently refused on that basis. On the same basis the 2018 approval for hard landscaping was revoked. On challenge the council sought legal advice which confirmed that the correct procedure had not been followed. Therefore the 2018 application is valid and forms a fallback position which could be implemented by the applicant.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Mr Coombes, the lead petitioner, was present and spoke against the application. Mr Coombes said little weight has been given to the fact that had the formal enforcement request made back in 2019 been implemented as per the enforcement protocol, we may not be in the current situation. Fundamentally this is identical to the April 2021 application, which was refused, the only difference being the addition of a few shrubs and screening plants in pots which cover planning breaches. Mr Coombes said he would have thought that these superficial amendments in respect of the hard and soft landscaping would be insufficient and contrary to policies DM1 and EN7. Since approval in 2017 this is now the third retrospective application, including the 2018 refusal. Mr Coombes said he had received an email from Richard Temple, Principal Planner, on 7th May 2019, and quoted ‘Please be aware that the approval of the condition is purely for drainage it is not an approval of an amendment to approved floor plans of this application. Should the development not be carried out in compliance with approval the applicant still risks enforcement action. I have made clear to the agent that foundations should be piled straight into the existing ground levels and not create a void.’ Mr Coombes said that the approved drainage details would not approve a void, which is what has now been created to allow a games room. Therefore, the petitioners ask that the Committee refuse on the same basis as April 2021. If the application is refused and an appeal is dismissed the petitioners would expect enforcement action to commence.
Mr Collins, the agent for the applicant, was present and spoke in favour of the application. Mr Collins said the main difference in what is being considering is that the applicant has applied for the details of hardstanding and associated levels be approved. The three-dimensional structure on site is as approved by the council. The council have been advised that it isn’t possible to revoke that approval. Mr Collins said he had been instructed by the applicant to audit the case and he hasn’t seen one objection or reason as to why the building is harmful. All elevations are as approved, there are windows in the front elevation which can’t be seen from the road. When looking out from inside the property there is no overlooking. The curved wall which is referenced in some objections was in place in 2016 when the original application was considered. The turning area in front of the house avoids the need to reverse into Mill Lane, which is a shared area. The solution is not to take the hardstanding away but to improve the landscaping which is what is proposed.
In response to a question from the Committee the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the April 2021 refusal was not appealed by the applicant. The applicant did appeal the discharge of conditions application for hard and soft landscaping in 2020. That application was refused on the basis that the changes proposed were too significant to be determined under that application type, which was agreed by the Planning Inspectorate.
It was also confirmed that where there are live applications or an appeal is in process, enforcement action is put on hold until the application has been determined or the appeal decided.
Councillor Foster proposed refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Edwards.
RESOLVED (by 6 for, to 3 against with 1 abstention) that full planning permission be refused for the following conditions:
The proposal re-contours the visual appearance of the land and would significantly increase the scale of the dwelling and proportions of the north elevation as to detract from the visual appearance of the area and would therefore fail to comply with Policy DM1 of Hastings Development Management Plan which requires development to take into account protecting and enhancing local character and it would fail to comply with Policy EN7 of Hastings Planning Strategy to protect and enhance the inherent visual qualities and distinctive character of the AONB landscape.
Notes to the applicant:
1. Statement of positive engagement: In dealing with this application Hastings Borough Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.Supporting documents:
- MAP HS-FA-21-00712 land Rear 23 Martineau Lane, item 303c PDF 316 KB
- HS-FA-21-00712 Land Rear of 23 Martineau Lane, item 303c PDF 120 KB
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.