Issue - meetings

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

This application was deferred at a previous meeting, therefore no public speaking is permitted in accordance with the council’s constitution.

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Recommendation:-

1.1.       Following publication of the report there are a number of clarifications required as follows:

1.2.       To add to paragraph 2.3, it should be pointed out that the trees to the rear of the site  between the gardens and the industrial premises to the north are covered under Tree Protection Order. The Order was made in 1997 and protects the mainly leylandii and some pine trees. It is considered necessary to add the following planning condition;

Prior to commencement of the outbuilding, an Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include full details of the technical structural engineering design and specification of the proposed outbuilding in relation to critical roots of the adjacent TPO trees. The development shall then be Page 5 of 5 implemented in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement and no tree shall be damaged as a result of construction works.

Reason: To ensure that adjacent TPO trees are retained and adequately protected during and after construction in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and biodiversity in accordance with Policies DM6 and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016).

1.3.       For clarity, planning permission is often not required for an outbuilding within a garden where it is used for a purpose incidental to the main dwellinghouse and where it complies with the size limits set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order. Key to the use of the outbuilding is that it has to be incidental to the main dwelling. This means, for example, that an outbuilding cannot provide independent, self-contained, accommodation and cannot be used for commercial purposes.

1.4.       It is important to point out that the drawing approved under application 15/00678/REM showed the two adjacent dwellings having the same eaves and ridge height as the

proposed dwelling. This was not the case, and the two adjacent dwellings should have accurately been shown as having significantly lower eaves and ridge heights. Contrary to what is stated at paragraph 8.5 the as built dwelling is only approximately 0.2m taller than the dwelling approved under 15/00678/REM with the discrepancy in the respective heights being mainly attributable to the inaccuracy of the height of the adjacent dwellings. It should be noted that application 15/00678/REM had a different applicant and agent than the current application.

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, members expressed concern about the potential impact on neighbours in particular due to noise. It was moved by Councillor Lynch and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be refused due to being contrary to policy DM10 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – permission be refused by reason of the effect of the garden room on neighbours, in particular as a result of noise.

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

Late items received following preparation of main agenda:

Recommendation:-

1.1.       Following publication of the report there are a number of clarifications required as follows:

To add to paragraph 2.3, it should be pointed out that the trees to the rear of the site between the gardens and the industrial premises to the north are covered under Tree Protection Order. The Order was made in 1997 and protects the mainly leylandii and some pine trees. It is considered necessary to add the following planning condition.

Prior to commencement of the outbuilding, an Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include full details of the technical structural engineering design and specification of the proposed outbuilding in relation to critical roots of the adjacent TPO trees. The development shall then be implemented in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement and no tree shall be damaged as a result of construction works.

Reason: To ensure that adjacent TPO trees are retained and adequately protected during and after construction in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and biodiversity in accordance with Policies DM6 and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016).

1.2.       For clarity, planning permission is often not required for an outbuilding within a garden where it is used for a purpose incidental to the main dwellinghouse and where it complies with the size limits set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order. Key to the use of the outbuilding is that it has to be incidental to the main dwelling. This means, for example, that an outbuilding cannot provide independent, self-contained, accommodation and cannot be used for commercial purposes.

1.3.       It is important to point out that the drawing approved under application 15/00678/REM showed the two adjacent dwellings having the same eaves and ridge height as the proposed dwelling. This was not the case, and the two adjacent dwellings should have accurately been shown as having significantly lower eaves and ridge heights. Contrary to what is stated at paragraph 8.5 the as built dwelling is only approximately 0.2m taller than the dwelling approved under 15/00678/REM with the discrepancy in the respective heights being mainly attributable to the inaccuracy of the height of the adjacent dwellings. It should be noted that application 15/00678/REM had a different applicant and agent than the current application.

1.4.       No further late items have been received.

Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning application 15/00678/REM (part retrospective).

A ward councillor spoke on this application.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, concern was expressed about the impact on trees and neighbours. It was moved by Councillor Gibbens and seconded by Councillor Lynch that the application be deferred for a site visit. Councillor Bray requested that, whilst not planning matters, the complaints raised by residents be referred to the relevant service within the council. Councillor Gibbens and Councillor Lynch amended their motion to include the request. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The item be deferred for a site visit;

(ii)          The complaints raised by residents be referred to the relevant service.