A PROPERTY developer is to be served with an enforcement notice ordering him to demolish a pair of semi-detached houses at 9 Kings Road, Alton, because they are too high. Franjul Limited is to be ordered to pull down the houses because they have been built higher than agreed by the original planning condition. They are said to overlook adjacent properties, alter the street scene and completely overshadow a neighbouring bungalow. East Hampshire District Council's North Planning Committee voted by a slim majority last Thursday to insist that the builder had overstepped the mark of acceptability. Members were unwilling to be forced into accepting a building which does not conform to the plan that they had agreed in July last year, believing that to do so would question their credibility as a planning authority and set a dangerous precedent. More than 40 letters of objection had been received to a revised plan by Franjul Ltd to regularise the 410mm (1ft 4in) discrepancy between the height of the plan agreed by EHDC and was under construction. Prior to the debate, EHDC Head of Planning, Daryl Phillips, pointed out that the committee's decision had to be based not on the reason why the discrepancy had occurred, but on whether the difference between the two schemes was acceptable. Speaking on behalf of the objectors, local resident David Johnson, was unimpressed with this advice. He pointed out that because the original bungalow was being replaced with what was effectively a three-storey building (two storeys with living accommodation in the roof space), it had been agreed that, to minimise the impact of the development it, like the bungalow, would be set well below street level. As such a condition had been attached to the original planning permission to ensure that before any construction took place EHDC planning officers would visit the site to agree the levels, but there was no record of this having taken place. Mr Johnson pointed out that work had started on site, "probably illegally, and certainly at their (the developer's) own risk". Already in a fairly advanced state of development, residents became so concerned over the height of the building that in December last year they called in the officers who put on a stop on the work pending a revised planning application. Residents believe that the building is not only higher but larger than the footprint on the original plan, so that it now overlooks the adjacent properties, and in particular the bungalow at No.7. Mr Johnson concluded: "This development exposes a dereliction of duty by council officers and openly flouts the terms of the planning condition. "If it is allowed to proceed, residents will be referring the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman." Alton Town Council also objected on grounds of "unacceptable overdevelopment of the site" in terms of form and mass which was "at variance with that of immediately adjoining properties and would alter the character of the area." Speaking at the meeting, town councillor Pam Jones described ATC as being "aghast" that a building, already considered as "overdevelopment", could be allowed to have been built "incorrectly". Mrs Jones warned EH colleagues about setting "a dangerous precedent" if they allowed the work to continue – a precedent which she felt would damage their reputation. She said: "In the interests of good practice, I urge you to reject this application." On behalf of Franjul Limited, Robert Gill, pointed out that steps had already been taken to try and mitigate the increase in height which had been the fault of the contractor. The ridge height of the roof had been reduced and it was intended to install a permanent 2m high screen to obscure the view of No.7 from the flight of steps, needed to exit the rear door to the property nearest to the bungalow. But councillor Allan Chick said the development had stepped over the line of reasonability and that the impact, especially on the neighbouring bungalow, was unacceptable. Jerry Janes (Alton Wooteys) told colleagues: "The committee agreed an application and the builder got it wrong – it is his problem, not ours." Mr Janes pointed out that Franjul Ltd had been granted consent for a development which was already verging on the fringe of acceptability in terms of height and mass and he had exceeded that remit. Despite a warning by EHDC leader, Ferris Cowper, that the council would be likely to incur costs because the developer was bound to appeal against the decision, councillors went against officer recommendation, voting instead to refuse permission on grounds of excessive height which could be seen to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, leading to loss of privacy and amenity. They agreed also to the serving of an Enforcement Notice, ordering the demolition of the building.
