Reprieve for home which was not built in line with planning permission
PUBLISHED: 05:37 14 August 2020 | UPDATED: 09:37 14 August 2020
A new home not built in line with planning permission has been allowed to remain as it is - but councillors have expressed their frustration at developers who do not stick to what is agreed.
Keith Driver, chairman of Norwich City Council’s planning committee, said he was “fed up with developers changing things without asking” after the case of a home in Leopold Close.
The city council granted permission for the property, off Leopold Road in Eaton, in 2018 and agreed amendments to materials to be used in 2019.
But the completed building differs from planning permission agreed, with an overall height of 7.4 metres, when it should have been 7.15 metres.
The ridge and eaves heights are taller than agreed, while the design and configuration of windows differs from what was granted permission.
That meant the applicant went back to the council to amend the permission.
You may also want to watch:
Officers said the changes did not result in a scale or mass that caused any unacceptable impacts on neighbours. They said the design was appropriate to the site and its setting.
Officers said: “In this case, the architect has advised that significant technical difficulties arose with the half-hip to the roof which would have required substantial steelwork and modifications to the already constructed superstructure.
“It is regrettable that the applicants did not engage with the local planning authority at this stage and that the amendment was only brought to our attention following construction, however the extent of any intention to carry out development without the necessary permission cannot be proven and this should not be given any significant consideration or weight in the determination of the application.”
Members of the council’s planning committee said they were frustrated the home had not been built according to what was agreed.
Mr Driver said: “I am getting pretty fed up with developers changing things without asking. But I think we need to approve it, because I cannot see any reason to turn it down.”
It was approved by four votes to three, with two abstentions. Had they decided to refuse, the committee might have insisted on enforcement action for the home to be rebuilt according to the original permission.
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Eastern Daily Press. Click the link in the orange box above for details.