Agenda item

The report before Members concerned an outline planning application to demolish 16 and 18 Prospect Road for the creation of a new access road to provide nine new detached dwellings and two replacement dwellings.

The application was previously considered by the Committee on 2 October 2014, where it was deferred to enable staff to seek to obtain details of the construction methodology in advance, to control the construction hours and to agree the phasing of the development.  The report was now brought back to Members, updated to reflect the outcome of these negotiations with the applicant.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant’s representative.

The objector commented that they were representing the residents of Prospect Road who were affected by the proposal. The objector advised that the two residents living adjacent to the site were both elderly and in poor health. The residential amenity of both of the residents would be significantly diminished should the demolition and construction works proceed. The objector also commented that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights gave every person the “entitlement of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions” and if approval was given for the works to commence then this entitlement would be denied.

In response the applicant’s representative commented that he was pleased to see that the proposal was recommend for approval but was concerned with the proposed hours of construction condition which was quite onerous and could lead to a delay in the completion of the construction period.

With its agreement Councillors Roger Ramsey and John Glanville addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ramsey commented that there had been no consideration of the human rights issues in the revised report and that there was also an issue regarding the lack of sunlight/daylight for the existing residents if the proposal was to be approved.

Councillor Glanville commented that Article 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights offered residents protection from noise and pollution issues and that officers had tried to address this by requesting a condition that would ask for a detailed methodology during the construction period.

During the debate Members discussed the unusual method of part demolishing the properties on either side of the application site and commented that a dangerous precedent could be set by approving the application. The Legal Officer advising the Committee acknowledged that the Human Rights issues were not addressed in the report and added that the protection to peaceful enjoyment of property was a qualified right. In that it was limited and needed to be balanced against the developer’s rights.

Members also received clarification that sunlight provision had been considered by officers. Due to the hipped nature of the two dwellings situated at the front of the proposal the sunlight projected was deemed sufficient.

Members also discussed the option of refusing planning permission and were reminded by the Head of Regulatory Services that the Planning Inspector had previously only refused the application for one reason and that was based on the absence of a legal agreement being in place.

Members also commented that the human rights issues had not been properly addressed in the report and agreed that further investigation be carried out to ascertain the Council’s position regarding these issues.

It was RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred to allow for officers to provide a further report assessing whether Human Rights Act under Article 8 contributed a material reason for refusal reflecting the unique combination of issues presented by the proposal which: had a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision; was outline with no definition of impact details; sliced two pairs of bungalows in half; and because of transmission through party wall directly affected the living conditions of two elderly residents situated either side.