Planning regulations breached at 78 Tiddington Road but Stratford district councillors vote against enforcement and bans public from meeting
RESIDENTS on Tiddington Road, Stratford, are demanding to know why the district council decided not to enforce “a clear breach of its own planning policy” after making a decision behind closed doors.
Stratford District Council’s regulatory committee excluded the press and the public from its meeting on Friday, 24th June, as it discussed work at 78 Tiddington Road.
The matter concerned the construction of an outbuilding that has breached planning rules – the building is higher than originally allowed under planning permissions.
Why this has been allowed to remain unchallenged is a mystery to nearby residents as the issue was discussed behind closed doors and resulted in councillors voting four to three against enforcement action.
The Tiddington Road Residents’ Association had challenged the original planning application when it was first proposed in 2016. The plans included the demolition and replacement of an existing 1920s dwelling and the construction of a garden store.
There were 20 letters of objection at the time listing 14 reasons why, such as:
- The proposed dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing building
- It would be visually intrusive, the outbuilding (garden store) was an inappropriate scale and visually intrusive
- And, the application was out of keeping with the conservation area and contrary to the core strategy.
This week the residents’ association said Friday’s decision had left them with lots of unanswered questions.
In a statement they said: “You would have thought when an enforcement officer openly admits to the regulatory committee that a breach in the planning regulations has been committed, the committee would act accordingly. Carrying out its duty in this way would give the general public confidence that their interests are being looked after and that the appropriate rules and regulations are being applied.”
They claim the outbuilding had been significantly higher than the approved height of 3.8m.
The residents also questioned the council’s commitment to its own environment pledge and strategy over the construction of new buildings, particularly in relation to the demolition of existing houses.
They said: “According to core strategy 20: ‘Renovating existing dwellings is often more suitable and environmentally friendly than replacing dwellings in their entirety. Where the existing dwelling is not suitable for retention, the replacement dwelling will be well sited, not visually intrusive, and not significantly larger than the dwelling it replaces.’
“The replacement house currently under construction at 78 Tiddington Road is larger than the perfectly good 1920s art and crafts house it replaced.”
The Herald and a member of the public asked for the debate and decision to be held in public, but councillors voted to meet in private, as they allowed under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The council said the essence of the argument to meet in private was that the ‘report includes certain information that would be likely to undermine the council’s position, depending on the decision reached by the committee in relation to the officer’s recommendation’.
Cllr Chris Mills, chairman of the regulatory committee, said this week: “It’s very important to me, as chairman of the regulatory committee, that our council meetings are held in public wherever possible, as this supports local democracy and open decision-making.
“However, the law recognises that it can sometimes be necessary for councillors to discuss a matter in private. An example would be where councillors need to discuss personal information about an individual, which is one of several classes of exempt information.
“In this instance the committee was discussing a planning issue, but it was not a planning application. Members needed to candidly discuss the pros and cons of the planning issue, which if discussed in public would either have stifled debate or led to the disclosure of exempt information.
As usual a public record will be published to show the decision, and the reasons for the decision.”
