Agenda and draft minutes

On a motion by the Chairman

RESOLVED:

That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it was likely that, in view of the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 4 (details of a recipient of services) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Following careful consideration of the representations made by the appellant and the responses of the Service, the Panel determined that:

1.            With regard to the Planning Service failing to follow its procedure by not including the objections of the complainant and others, The Panel upheld this element.  The Panel noted, however, that the Service had apologised for this failure and it accepted that whilst apologies cannot “turn back the clock”, there was no point in pursuing this element further as any attempt to re-think the issue would be both impractical and speculative at best.

The complainant’s argument that the Service was not exercising its full powers of enforcement with respect to the conditions of the planning permission was upheld in part.  The Panel recognised that planning enforcement powers were discretionary.  There was no absolute duty on a Local Planning Authority to issue enforcement notices to apprehend each perceived breach of planning control.  The protocols on planning enforcement recommend in all but the most aggravated breaches exploration of a negotiated resolution.  Whilst it was acknowledged that steps had been taken to seek compliance, the Panel recommended that the Head of Service robustly pursue all avenues - including enforcement action - if considered expedient, to secure compliance with condition 2 (accordance with plans) and 5 (Landscape).  

            The Planning Service as part of pursuing compliance with Condition 5 was further strongly urged to review the width of the green strip around the perimeter of the car park to ensure that it was at least 1.5 metres wide and that, though outside of the scope of the planning conditions, the Service seek to persuade the owners to install a kerb around the car park to ensure that vehicles could not encroach on the soft landscaping.   

2.            With regard to the fence between the complainant’s property and the car park, the Panel upheld this element as the fence did not appear to be of sufficient height (and was further reduced by the raised surface of the car park).  The effect of the permission had been to lessen the complainant’s privacy and arguably decrease her security as seen in the photographic evidence provided.  The complainant confirmed that the fence belonged to the dance studio and the Panel had no authority to compel the owners to replace it with a higher fence, let alone construct a wall (which was never part of the planning conditions).  What it could do was offer to pay for a fence to be built on the complainant’s property, for that section of the garden which bordered the car park, close to the existing fence (to reduce loss of garden space).  It proposed a 2 metre high fence comprising: concrete fence posts, concrete gravel boards and topped with close-boarded panels.   

Observations:

The Panel appreciated the complainant’s frustration at the failure of the Planning Service in this instance, but given the large number of planning decisions made each year - in excess of 2000 - the vast majority of applications granted conferred benefit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.