Agenda item

Retrospective application for a single storey rear extension to provide facilities for disabled person.


Members were told that the application had been brought to the Planning Committee as the building was owned by Tendring District Council.


The Committee heard that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension measuring 3.8m in depth and 3.1m in height.


Members were made aware that the extension was sited to the rear of the house and was deemed by Officers to be of an acceptable size, scale and appearance with no significant adverse effects on the visual amenities of the area.


Officers also told the Committee that the single storey nature of the extension meant it posed no significant threat to overlooking or loss of privacy to the adjacent neighbouring dwellings. It had no significant impacts on the loss of light, which were so significant as to justify refusing planning permission.


The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.


At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Head of Planning and Building Control (JP-G) in respect of the application.


There were no updates circulated to Members for this application.


There were no public speakers for this application.


Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Is this application before us because Tendring District Council own the property?

Yes, that is correct. Under TDC’s constitutional arrangements the application has to come to Committee.

Under normal circumstances, not being TDC property, would this application be dealt with by Officers?

Had this not come to Committee, Officers would have delegated powers to approve the application.

How does a building get built at this stage if the property is TDC’s?

Ultimately, there are two different regimes, and they have to deal with their applications on two different systems and not share information to a degree. Officers also have approved inspectors that don’t have to tell TDC what they’re doing, and they deal with a lot of sites as well. Arguably, because it is TDC land there is a third department involved as well but Officers can only deal with what is presented to them in a planning application.

Would this application be passed under permitted development had it not been TDC property?

No, given the height of the flat roof against the boundary within 2 metres of that boundary it is higher than 2.5 metres. There might be another reason but that is the most obvious reason that Officers can see so it needs planning permission. However, some instances, people are not clear on what is permitted development and what isn’t and have made a natural mistake and that is why retrospective applications come to Committee.

What is the danger of us causing a precedent here?

Unfortunately, the perception of the public of what they can and can’t do is a continuous challenge for the Authority and expressly telling them what is permitted development and what is not allowed and, in some cases, TDC have removed the permitted development rights away from some estates – that is a matter of education and to get the message out in an effective way. There is no punishment for retrospective applications, there are ideas around increased fees but ultimately this applicant has realised they needed planning permission and have put the application in to rectify their mistake and it can serve as a good example to realising what they needed to do for TDC to determine. This must be determined on its own individual merits.


Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Placey and:-




1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the Officer report, and with the removal of condition 1, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and,


2)    the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: