You may have seen some of the postings on VentnorBlog over the years that we’ve had about planning issues around the Island, sadly often the abuses of the planning system by property developers.
Yesterday we had notice of the latest news on the saga of property developer Michael Jennings’ fight to save the unauthorised changes he made to his home in Undercliff Gardens.
Readers may remember that back in May 2008, the Planning Committee refused retrospective permission on the development and the Local Planning Authority subsequently slapped an enforcement notice on Jennings to return the property to approved plans.
It seems that Mr Jennings’ Do it first and sort out the legalities later attitude has come back to bite him (again).
Following refusal of the retrospective application, he appealed (once again) to the Planning Inspectorate (PI).
Yesterday’s official notice from the PI shows that not only have they dismissed his appeal but also recommend the following
Conclusion
29. In my overall conclusion, save for items (i) and (ix) of article 3 of the notice (i.e. the velux rooflights and the ground levels), the retention of the dwelling as built and the summerhouse has a detrimental impact first, on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and secondly, on the living conditions of the neighbouring residential properties by reason of overlooking due to the summerhouse.As such, the dwelling as built and the summerhouse are contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
We’re sure that someone out there might feel sorry for Mr Jennings, but it’s probably not the Planning Committee who voted vote of 14-0 against granting permission for the retrospective application, nor the neighbouring residents who have had to fight tooth and nail for the last few years to have the breaches of planning permission dealt with.
Enforcement
It will be interesting to now see what happens with enforcement. The council’s planning office isn’t exactly know for its keenness to enforce planning conditions that the councillors on the planning committee (PC) spend a lot of time and effort putting in place.
Since the planning committee refused retrospective permission on another of Mr Jennings’ developments, St Joseph’s, Ventnor (see many VB article on it), living by the site we have not witnessed any enforcement action, despite the PC insisting that the property is taken back to the approved plans rather than those that Mr Jennings chose to follow (without permission).
