Neighbourly Dispute Over Retrospective Planning Changes

BECAUSE of three inaccuracies in this report first published yesteday, March 22, this is an ammended version.
A THAME developer has been accused of flouting planning regulations, when he built a bungalow over one metre away from where the line of the building was supposed to go.
Neighbour, Andy Gaulter-Carter, told members of Thame Town Council’s planning committee that the distance between the bungalow, recently built next to his property in Aylesbury Road, and his garden fence, was now half what was shown on the original plans passed by the district council. Also, a window to the new building, glazed with clear glass, could be looked into from his own property and vice versa.
Mr N Rogers, who had the bungalow built, had applied for retrospective planning permission for the changes to the original plans passed.
Mr Gaulter-Carter said that it was his view that the changes made when the bungalow was built, on land adjacent to 19 Brookside, had almost certainly been made deliberately and should not be accepted.
An informal letter from a Planning Officer, Mr John Bedford, to Mr Gaulter-Carter, said that there were ‘matters that do constitute breaches in planning law’in the case and that retrospective planning permission would need to be sought.
A statement by Mr Rogers’ architect admitted that amendments should have been applied for and apologised on behalf of his client.
In a letter to the town council, Mr Rogers suggested that Mr Gaulter-Carter may be attempting to “tarnish” his character and denied knowingly flouting planning rules.

The Mayor, Cllr David Laver, said: “A developer cannot be allowed to make mistakes and get away with it. Developers and architects should be able to follow plans. I am not happy with this application.”

Cllr David Dodds described the building as ‘unneighbourly’. “At the very least,” he said, “obscured glass should be installed in the offending window, but even better, it should be removed.”
Cllr Dodds said that in his opinion, because of new government planning guidelines, he doubted whether an appeal would be upheld even if the proposal got that far.

Cllr Beatrice Dobie said: “If we let this through, it will open the floodgates.”

The planning committee voted unanimously to recommend refusal of the application and to express their strong opposition to the application which they considered unneighbourly and intrusive.

NB The previous report of this item incorrectly stated that 1) It was the distance between the two houses that had been halved; 2) that the offending window was not in the original plans and 3)omitted to state that Mr Bedford was expressing an informal opinion in a letter to Mr Gaulter Carter.
ThameNews.Net apologies for any misleading impressions that may have been given about matters which were not made clear during the discussion that took part in the Planning meeting. The amendments to the report have been made following a more detailed discussion with Mr Gaulter-Carter.