Householder stretched planning rule but not by enough to make it worth fighting, Milton Keynes planners decide

The committee heard that Marco Encarnacao, of Challacombe, in Furzton has almost completed work on converting his home from a bungalow into a bigger property without first getting planning permission.

Mr Encarnacao told Milton Keynes Council’s development control panel that he had been given the nod by planners and was surprised to be in front of Thursday’s meeting discussing his part-retrospective planning application.

But his next-door neighbour, Paul Endersby, said: “The owner has sought no one’s permission and has carried on building despite being told by the council’s planning department that this was not a permitted development and being advised to stop by planning enforcement.”

The panel of five councillors who met remotely on Thursday heard that the only thing left to be done by the applicant was to raise the height of his roof.

A front porch extension, single-storey side and rear extensions, and the relocation of a rear boundary wall have already been completed.

Mr Encarnacao said it was “wrong saying I started building the house without guidance.

“I applied for pre-planning permission which received positive feedback from the council.

“It’s still the same house with a rear extension which is permitted development.”

He speculated that he thought the root of the problem was that his neighbour had previously been allowed to park on his land.

Planning officers had recommended permission for the application, saying that proposals to raise the roof by 1m are “fairly minor.”

Planning team leader Elizabeth Verdegem said the owner had been advised to seek permission.

“Without wanting to have a he-said, she said, we have had this debate with the applicant during the process,” she said.

Planning officers said a rear extension had been built 20cm higher than permitted rights allow but that was not a strong reason for refusal.

Cllr John Bint (Cons, Broughton) saying: “We should be serious about the threshold. What if it was another 20cm and then another 20cm.”

And Cllr James Lancaster (Cons, Tattenhoe) said: “I still feel that whether it is 20cm or not it needs to be taken into account.”

But after receiving advice that the council would be likely to lose any appeal, and public money, on that issue, they decided not to pursue.

Councillors remained unhappy with the plan and Cllr Pauline Wallis (Lab, Central MK) said: “He’s just done what he wanted and that seems out of order to me. I can’t agree with this at all.”

Councillors settled their dislike on a wall that had been built between parking spaces.

Cllr Lancaster said the wall is “an invasion of space” and Cllr Bint said is “screwing up the door opening space and the pedestrian access”.

The committee decided that the only substantial objection regarded the lack of parking space, and they voted for that unanimously.