Agenda item

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as garage.

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as garage.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner objecting to the proposal made the following points:-

• The design of the building with double doors to the front and rear meant that it was not a garage.
• The design of the building meant that access and egress were virtually impossible.
• The building had been connected to mains water, sewage and drainage and was the beginning of preparing the building for occupancy.
• The appearance of the building made it look as though it had been designed as a home of multiple occupation.
• The building was incongruous and out of character with the local area.
• The building should be demolished
• The building was effectively a ‘beds in sheds’ application.

The applicant /agent made the following points:-

• The garage had been constructed within permitted development rights.
• Permission had not been granted to extend into the roof space of the primary dwelling and so additional space had been created through the garage.
• The highways officer confirmed that the floor level was higher than the garden.
• In relation to the access and egress pointes raised by the petitioner, the applicant confirmed that the building could be accessed without problems.

Members discussed the application and noted that it had been built more in accordance with accommodation in mind rather than as a garage. A number of further concerns were raised which included the need for cavity walls, access to the rear of the property via the garage and its overall dimensions. In response, the applicant informed Members that there was room to access the rear of the property with a vehicle inside the garage and that its size conformed to permitted development.

A ward Councillor was unable to attend but asked for a written statement to be read out at the meeting in support of the petition in objection to the proposal. The following points were noted:

• Residents were upset and disappointed at the removal of the mature trees, and a hedge. 
• Residents felt that the building was not acceptable by condition of design, height and size.
• Residents were concerned that drainage, electric and water utilities had been installed.  
• Residents were concerned that the building might be converted at a later date into residential accommodation.
• A Highways Inspector had reported that there was insufficient space for a vehicle to manoeuvre in and out of the garage.

In the course of discussions, Members noted there was a disparity between the level of the floor within the garage and the road at street level and a ramp would be required for this to become fully functional.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application was Refused for the reasons set out in the officers report and addendum circulated at the meeting and reason for refusal 2 to include 'level of the internal floor, ' between 'sightlines' and 'and'.