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. Members also sought clarification on the impact and application of the the Human Rights Act 1998 and Articles 1 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights on the rights of those affected by the proposed development.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillors Roger Ramsey, Ron Ower and Darren Wise.

Councillor Ramsey requested the application be called in to the Committee, on the grounds of its impact on neighbours and the streetscene.

Councillor Wise requested the application be called in to Committee, as the previous proposal had issues regarding overcrowding and insufficient pedestrian access to the site via the access road and this required a more detailed review.

Councillor Ower requested the application to be called in to Committee, due to the previous planning history for the site, the closeness to the Green Belt and possible traffic problems.

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

The objector commented that the proposed development would have a severe negative impact on the quiet and peaceful environment of Prospect Road. The objector also commented that whilst understanding that everyone had human rights there seemed to be little consideration being given to the human rights of the elderly neighbours living either side of the development site who would be subjected to the impact of months of excessive noise, disturbance and stress.

In response the applicant’s representative commented that the restriction on construction hours would lead to a delay in completing the project and would extend the noise and disturbance on neighbouring properties. The representative also commented that the application was recommended for approval by officers and had only previously been refused by the Planning Inspectorate due to the lack of a financial agreement being in place.

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

Councillor Ramsey commented that the Planning Inspector had not addressed the human rights issues connected with the application as he had dismissed the appeal on other grounds. Councillor Ramsey also commented on the proposal which allowed for the “cutting in half” of the two bungalows and the effect this would have on the elderly residents.

Councillor Glanville agreed with Councillors Ramsey’s comments and also commented that both of the residents were elderly with one in particular suffering from ill health.

During the debate members discussed the possibility of the proposal being rejected which in turn could lead to an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and the possibility of the Council facing costs if the inspectorate found in favour of the applicant.

Members also discussed the applicant’s apparent negative response to the changing of the hours of construction condition which would have gone some way to alleviating some of the inconvenience suffered by the elderly neighbours.

The Legal Adviser to the Committee advised that human rights legislation was a qualified or limited right and not an absolute or unqualified right. The legal advisor referred to and cited paragraphs 8.7.4 – 8.7.6 of the report.

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however, following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which received unanimous support it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The proposal would result in the demolition of 2 x halves of semi-detached properties where the occupiers of the remaining halves were single housebound vulnerable elderly people with medical conditions. Given the particular characteristics of the occupiers of the retained halves in this case, there were significant concerns that the demolition stage of the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of stress to those occupiers through noise, dust, vibration, mental anguish, uncertainty and loss of quiet enjoyment of their home. Whether conditions or other legislation could adequately address the concerns had been carefully considered, but in this case it was considered that the particular vulnerability of the existing occupiers meant that the concerns could not be overcome. The proposal would seriously impinge upon the Human Rights of the occupiers of the adjoining properties and was therefore considered unacceptable.