A COMPLAINT will be lodged with the Ombudsman following an East Hampshire planning meeting, which people have variously described as a "stitch up". In an unconventional and difficult debate last Thursday, East Hampshire District Council's north planning committee appeared coerced into reversing a decision, made at the March meeting, to require a property developer to pull down a pair of semi-detached houses at 9 King Road. Franjul Limited was to have been issued with an enforcement notice ordering the demolition of the houses because unauthorised adjustments had resulted in gross overlooking and over-dominance of neighbouring properties. But the issue was brought back to the April meeting because EHDC Head of Planning, Daryl Phillips, felt unable to defend the notice without first clarifying the reasons for refusal. It appears that while councillors felt they had listed their reasons, the only reason recorded was because the building was considered to have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbours. At the meeting, EHDC head of legal services, Jo Gabell explained that while the exercise was not to revisit the decision itself, if councillors were unable to come up with sound reasons for refusal they would have to consider the officer's recommendation, which was to grant permission for the changes. While the crux of the matter appeared to be that the development should not have been given permission in the first place, Mr Phillips was adamant that the mass and bulk of the building was not up for debate – it had not changed and it was going to stay – "we can't pull it down," he said. The significant changes had been internal where the floor levels had been jacked-up by 19 inches resulting in the raising of the doors and windows, particularly noticeable at the rear of the two properties. While he agreed that this had resulted in "unacceptable overlooking" it would, he said, be possible to condition any permission to mitigate the effect of overlooking by insisting on obscure glazed windows for the sides of the bay windows and a privacy screen to prevent overlooking from the backdoor of the property closest to No7 Kings Road. Ian Dowdle (Whitehill) was appalled at the suggestion. He told the meeting: "The building going up is not to plan. I understand the attempt by the officers to make the best of a bad job, but it's not enough. Too many conditions will be needed to achieve this. The bottom line is, the building has been 'jacked-up' resulting in over-dominance." Jerry Janes (Alton Wooteys) agreed. Referring to it as "a building out of place" he warned: "To allow a building that large will be a terrible disservice to the objectors. "The developer got it wrong – he should take it down and do it better." Having seen many of their arguments shot down by the officers, councillors were asked to vote on reasons for refusal, put forward by Andrew Joy (Alton Ashdell): that the unauthorised changes had served to exacerbate the overlooking and impression of over-dominance on neighbouring properties, and would result in an unacceptable and detrimental effect on amenities. The proposal was lost by six votes to seven and the decision to refuse the application was lost. Councillors were then asked to vote on the officers' recommendation for permission, which was carried by seven votes to six. Local residents were appalled by the U-turn. Graham Thomas likened it to a "Mugabe-style charade of democracy" while David Johnson viewed it as a "stitch up" and one which they would be taking steps to investigate and contest. Immediate neighbour (No7), Liz Ludlow, has already drafted a report to the Ombudsman. Angry at the "incompetence" which has led to a building which "completely dominates" her house and garden, she told The Herald: "The initial planning application should never have been past. Officers didn't look at the levels of the (new) property – if they had they would have seen that the ground floor level of No9 would be only inches from the top of our fence. With the adjustments the floor level is now even higher, so we are completely overlooked." Mrs Ludlow is hoping that the Ombudsman will call EHDC officers to account for their handling of the application: "Why didn't they come to inspect the site, as they were required to do under the Section 6 agreement? Why didn't they read the small print on the plans which would have told them that the floor levels were inappropriate? "Council tax payer pays for their salaries and they are not doing their job properly – it is not for us, the public, but for them to read the small print on the plans – it is their job."
