A Retrospective Planning Application

Chris and June Lumley have referred a planning application up to next Thursday’s committee meeting.

This is a retrospective application (that is, applying for permission for something that you’ve already done.)

07/01050/FUL
RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLINGS AND CONSTRUCT TWO SEMI-DETACHED CHALETS SITE OF 42 AND 44 DOWN HALL ROAD RAYLEIGH

…This application follows a number of previous schemes for each dwelling that was submitted on an individual basis. Two proposals were submitted for the demolition of the bungalows and construction of a pair of detached houses (04/01042/FUL, 04/01043/FUL & 06/00061/FUL, 06/00062/FUL). These applications were refused on grounds relating to lack of separation at first floor level and overlooking to the private amenity areas of adjacent neighbours.

3.5 A further application for a two storey side and rear extension at 44 Down Hall Road (06/00500/FUL) was refused on design grounds and a similar application at 42 Down Hall Road was refused on both design grounds and breach of the 45? rule.

3.6 An application 06/01030/FUL for two storey side and rear extensions incorporating pitched roofs with first floor accommodation covering both of the properties was approved and the development commenced. Instead of extending the original dwellings as per the description on the application, the properties were demolished. The plans did indicate that the majority of the internal walls were to be removed and, as such, the complete demolition of the properties could be inferred from that. The majority of No. 44 has now been rebuilt and work has begun on No. 42.

3.7 Thus this application is essentially for the same development as approved under 06/01030/FUL, but as demolition and rebuild rather than extend and refurbishment. The final built form is the same for some minor changes, these include the facing walls are to be of brick rather than having a rendered finish. The 2 front ground floor windows at No. 42 are proposed to have bow window projections of 0.3 metres and two windows rather than one on the front bay at no. 44. Aside from these details the external form and appearance of the dwellings are the same as that of the previous approved development. As a result, it would not be reasonable to refuse the application.

3.8 The Highways Authority has raised an objection, as the development constitutes new dwellings, rather than extensions, as previously applied for, and thus subject to a requirement for an adequate turning area allowing vehicles to enter the highway in forward gear. The hardstanding areas to the front of each property are approximately 10 metres in width and 8 metres in depth and it is thought that they are adequate for the parking and manoeuvring of private vehicles.

Officers are recommending approval….

  • Chris, Was there an original application that was turned down and they went ahead and built anyway or was there no application made and they went ahead and built? Either way surely this is no way to act responsibly!

  • Mike, this application was to initially extend and refurbish but the developer then knocked down and rebuilt – in essence the development remains as per the original planning application (see point 3.7 above), albeit it there are some minor changes.

    I can see no reason why the application would be turned down.