Loading document...
AT
LAND ADJACENT AND TO THE REAR OF 3-5 TENNIS ROAD, DOUGLAS. IM2 3LW
This application is made subsequent to the refusal of application no 17/01156/B. A copy of the refusal notice and officer's report and recommendation for that application are referenced to assist the Planning Committee in identifying how this new application differs from, and overcomes the objections to, the previous application.
The Committee may or may not be aware that application no. 17/01156/B was dealt with in a manner that the applicant considers, in the minimum, as 'procedurally irregular'. It would come as no surprise to the applicant to discover that the Committee were not aware of that application, being that it was not placed before them for determination.
The application was determined by a refusal, under delegated powers, before the applicant had had sight of the officer's report.
The applicant has little faith in this approach, one which would appear to discard any pretence that valid applications should be treated consistently, fairly and put before the Committee, particularly those applications facing a recommendation for refusal.
Despite mounting concerns as to the manner in which the previous application has been handled by the planning department, the applicant is still availed of the firm belief that fairness and consistency are solid principles of the Planning Committee and has consequently requested that this application be heard by the Committee and no other means.
The Director of Planning and Building control has stated that an application's presentation before the Committee cannot be triggered by an applicant's request and would be done with reference to the requirements of the 'Standing Orders'; which implies that the Standing Orders expressly prohibit any mechanism that will absolutely ensure that the Committee is consulted on an application.
A scrutiny of those Standing Orders identifies that this is not the case. Either, the Director of Planning and Development Control, (in accordance with Clause 3(I) of the Standing Orders), considers that the proposal ought to be determined by the Committee, or, a Member of the Committee has, in accordance with Clause $3(k)$, requested the application be referred to the Committee for a decision.
The applicant is expecting that, whichever route has been applied, that this application will be heard by the Committee.
In considering this new application, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Committee attribute an equal degree of weight to this statement as would be given to the officer's report and recommendation.
The applicant wishes to outline one last area of concern regarding the officer's report and recommendation for the previous application.
The previous application underwent a period of consultation of almost one year during which there were many changes in order to allay a range of concerns, resulting in the eventual submitted proposal that was, according to the planning officer, subject only to two concerns, namely trees and parking provision (both of which are now handled as is outlined later).
On eventually seeing the report (the decision to refuse already having been taken) the applicant was dismayed to find a plethora of new and previously unstated material in support of the recommendation which alarmingly included contradictory statements between the two planning officers that had dealt with the matter during the consultation stage.
Much of the quoted material appears to be nothing more than generalised statements which purport to blanket-justify the refusal with no regard to the facts or to the lengthy pre-determination discussion.
If weight is to be given to an officer's recommendation then that recommendation should be factually based upon the issues posed and the efforts made to address those issues should be fairly referenced and acknowledged.
Below is the applicant's response indicating how the comments and concerns in the refusal notice and officer's report are overcome and satisfied by the new application.
The Refusal Notice R.1: The new proposal does none of the harm that the previous application was purported to do. Following a written pre-application suggestion of one of the consulted officers, the new proposal simply mimics the adjacent pair of semi's although, in terms of massing, it is now lower than the original proposal and the adjacent mimicked building. R.2: The new proposal, for the reasons outlined above, cannot detract from the street-scene or be detrimental to the conservation area.
In any event, the statement that the previous proposal 'fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area' is entirely subjective. The officer offers no evidence in support of this statement. Seemingly the officer considers that there is no need. There is the assumption by the officer that, as it has been stated by the officer, it will be accepted without question. R.3: The parking issues have been addressed entirely in the new proposal. R.4: The new application brings the redundant Coach House into beneficial use once more.
An important point to make regarding the reason at R. 4 is that the first scheme proposed bringing the Coach House into use as a dwelling in addition to the proposed semi-detached houses. The preapplication advice of the planning officer was that such a use was contrary to policy and would most likely result in a refusal of the whole scheme. Its removal from the early scheme is then bizarrely stated as a reason to refuse the later application. There appears to be direct contradiction and poor consistency in the advice given.
R.5: The arboriculture officer, in his own words, 'stopped short of objecting to the scheme as he believes that the trees will eventually outgrow the site' and that of the adjacent site. Consequently, there is no valid objection on the grounds of the trees and the planning officer should not create one. R.6: The proposal does not remove amenity space for the 'flats' at 5 Tennis Road. The ground floor flat at 5 Tennis Road has previously had use of the application site but not now. The provision of such an area for a small flat inevitably led to issues over maintenance as occupiers of flats rarely, if ever, wish to maintain substantial gardens. Tenants that wish to have the use of a garden inevitably rent houses and not flats.
The Officer's Report It is only necessary to address those points that are stated in support of the recommendation for refusal. Consequently, if a point is not addressed here, this can be taken to illustrate that it is neutral in content or context insofar as any negative recommendations are concerned or that it is simply affirms observations that are neutral. 1.1: As above, the site is not presently used as outdoor amenity space for any of the flats within 5 Tennis Road, nor will it be so used in the future. 2.3: The proposal is now three storeys and not four. 2.4: Vehicle parking for the semi-detached properties is now incorporated into the ground floor of the derelict Coach House. 2.5: The officer correctly identifies that the application has been through various consultations and pre-application discussions prior to determination. The officer should have gone on to say the issues had been significantly narrowed and strongly indicated that a significant part of the statements in the report beyond 2.5 had never been previously discussed with the applicant. 4.1: The application site is within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential'. 4.4: Strategic Policy 1 is cited although it is unclear why. This policy ubiquitously supports the application site but this is completely ignored. 4.5: Strategic Policy 2 is cited and, again, despite the support indicated by the policy, it is ignored. 4.6: Strategic Policy 10, as above, supports the proposal, and is again ignored. 4.7: The new application complies with General Policy 2. 4.8: The new application will enhance the conservation area
If there is disagreement to this sentiment, the attention of the Committee is drawn to application No. 16/0227/B. If that consent is considered to enhance the conservation area then any suggestion that the subject application would not must be considered invalid.
4.9: Please see the comment above as relates to 16/0227/B. The officer's quotation of Environmental Policy 42 is misleading. This plot is not identified in the area plan as requiring preservation. 4.10: The applicant fails to see why Housing Policy 4 is stated. This policy relates to new housing in the countryside. The site is not in the countryside. The inclusion of this point reinforces the view that a considerable amount of the content of the officer's report is either contrived or irrelevant. 5.2: This objection has been overcome in this proposal and the applicant is happy for the garages to be a conditioned to retain a use class as solely for the storage of vehicles. 5.3: The officer has either misquoted or misunderstood the arboricultural officer. He has indicated that ALL the trees in or around the site will eventually outgrow their locations, not just the conifers. In any event, the applicant is presently arranging for the removal of ALL trees within the site. The arboricultural officer, in his own words, stopped short of objecting to the proposal because the trees would outgrow the site. It is the applicant's view that, as their outgrowth is a foreseeable event, they can be removed now. 5.4: Any disturbance to the residents of Ancrage will be temporary. The suggestion that the proposal will block light from both front and rear gardens is unsupportable. 5.5: In common with other contrivances/irrelevancies within the officer's report, this 'objection' has nothing whatsoever to do with the application site. It talks about 'adjoining buildings' and access issues on the rear loop, matters that are nothing whatsoever to do with the application site but that are irrelevantly brought in to justify the recommendation to refuse. 6.1: Agreed. Under current policy the site is suitable for residential development. 6.2: Agreed, likewise. 6.3: Here, the officer is clearly attempting to distract from the above mentioned approval 16/0227/B which is literally across the road from the application site. The arguments put forward by the officer are a weak attempt to suggest that that approval should not support the approval sought here. This approval 16/0227/B is of greater density and massing, it is a continuous row of terraces built directly off the gable of an existing dwelling. The officer seems to believe there is some validity in him pointing out that 'it has to be acknowledged the approved scheme above has not been built (at the time of the site visit) but each application is assessed on its own merits'. Whether it has been built or not is hardly a relevant issue. The main issue here is that the applicant's new scheme is by far superior in its ability to enhance the conservation area and, by that default, should be presumed upon favourably. 6.4: The new application handles this objection. 6.5 The new application handles this objection. 6.6 The new application handles this objection. 6.7 The new application handles these objections.
Interestingly, the officer takes it upon himself to state 'Without doubt the proposal will have a harmful effect upon the character of the streetscene'. This appears to be a repetition of the trait referred to in R.2 - there is the assumption by the officer that in making a particular statement, it will be accepted without question. 6.9 The replacement window solution adequately deals with the provision of natural light to the flats. As outlined previously the development does not remove amenity space from the flats. It was only ever available to the ground floor flat and this availability ceased some time ago. 6.10 The Coach House in now part of the development proposed which brings it into beneficial use. 6.11 Highway concerns have been addressed by the revised application. 6.12 This paragraph is entirely contradictory. Concern is expressed over risk to trees followed immediately by a statement accepting that mitigating measures could be implemented in respect of the trees. An 'element of harm on the neighbouring property' is described but not quantified, presumably incapable of being quantified because, in reality, it doesn't exist. Lastly, there is a reiteration that the proposal is detrimental to the streetscene, again, with no evidence to support such a statement.
The Office of the Applicant
Attached: Planning Officer Report and Recommendations dated 20.09.18
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
