Agenda item

Single storey outbuilding to be used as an outhouse.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED That:

1)    The application be approved;

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to word a condition ensuring that no further windows or doors are added to the outbuilding;

3)    Officers explore the existence of a ‘hidden door’ not indicated on the agreed plans.

Single storey outbuilding to be used as an outhouse.

Officers introduced the report and recommended that the application be approved. Members were informed that retrospective planning permission was being sought for the erection of a 34 sqm single storey outbuilding (50 sqm including the canopy). It was noted that the outbuilding was located on a sizeable plot therefore the impact on neighbouring properties was deemed to be acceptable.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. It was claimed that the outbuilding breached six Council policy guidelines.

·         the materials utilised to construct the outbuilding were not similar to the main building and were therefore out of character;

·         the outbuilding had a toilet area therefore its use was not ancillary to the main building;

·         doors and windows should face the main house – a small window to the rear of the outbuilding was in breach of guidelines;

·         according to policy the maximum height of a verandah should be 30cm – in this case it was 58cm high and the overall height of the structure was 3.2m which was in breach of policy;

·         outbuildings should not exceed 30 sqm – this one was approximately 33 sqm in size;

·         the outbuilding was located in a raised area of the garden and the neighbouring house was lower therefore its first floor bedroom windows were directly overlooked – this was an invasion of privacy and the hedges between the houses were not an adequate screen;

In response to the objections raised, it was claimed that policy did not dictate that materials used for an outbuilding had to match the existing house. Moreover, it was considered that the amenity of neighbours would not be compromised in this case and the footprint of the development was deemed to be proportionate to the dwelling house. The Committee was informed that there was no evidence to suggest the outbuilding would be used for independent accommodation – it was currently being used as storage. With regards to overlooking, distances were considered to be acceptable and all guidelines had been adhered to. Members requested further clarification regarding the height of the outbuilding and were informed that it reached a height of 3.2m maximum which was 200mm above what was generally considered acceptable; however, this alone would not stand up as a reason for refusal should the matter go to appeal. In response to the Committees’ questions, it was confirmed that the Council’s record in winning appeals relating to oversized outbuildings was limited. Councillors expressed concern regarding the possible future removal of the hedgerow screening but were advised that it would not be possible to enforce hedgerow retention. However, a Condition could be added to ensure that no further windows or doors were added to the outbuilding in the future. At the request of Councillors, it was agreed that officers would explore the existence of a ‘hidden door’ which did not appear on the agreed plans. If necessary, officers would insist that this be removed as it was not shown on the plans.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and agreed subject to additional Conditions, with 7 Members voting in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED That:

1)    The application be approved subject to the Conditions in the report;

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to word a Condition ensuring that no further windows or doors are added to the outbuilding;

3)    Officers explore the existence of a ‘hidden door’ not indicated on the agreed plans.