Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a garden room and garden store (revised retrospective application)

The Development Management Case Officer introduced the report and advised that he had received no objections to the garden room but had received 7 letters of objection and 2 letters of support for the garden store which was sited at 22m from the road.  There had been some comments on the new gate entrance but this had no bearing on the application.  It was proposed to lower the roof height of the garden store by 400mm and the Conservation Officer had not raised any objections therefore the recommendation was to approve the application. 

The Committee were then addressed by a representative of the Parish Council.  He questioned why there was no Listed Building application for the proposal and said that construction had continued despite the planning officers instructions to cease further works when they visited the site.  He also noted that their first application, which was submitted retrospectively, had also been refused permission.

The Committee were then addressed by 5 local residents who spoke in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:

·         No amount of shrubs will screen the store and to allow it to remain sets a precedent for any other application in the village.

·         The view from my kitchen window is completely dominated and this will be worse in the winter months.

·         The applicants were given advice that the proposal would be unacceptable on the character of a listed building.

·         The Conservation Officer’s advice was misplaced and there was no evidence they had visited the site.

·         The reduction of one tile length was ridiculous, it was close to a footpath and in full view and impeded the streetscene.

The Agent for the applicant then read out a statement from the owner of the cottage.  She said her mobility was not good so the store was located as close to the cottage as possible and a climbing plant would be grown over it to soften the outline.  She said that she wished the cottage to look its best and by next year the store would be much improved.

The Agent for the applicant said the roof height would be reduced by over 1ft and following refusal of the previous application, they had worked with planning officers on this one.  She said the store was well concealed and could only be seen from longer views or the footpath.  She concluded that the applicant was happy to accept a condition to reinstate the hedgerow.

In his absence, the comments of Ward Member, Councillor Crispin Raikes, were read out.  He said that this is not the first time work has been carried out before permission had been granted.  The Parish Council had raised concerns the previous year as the construction had no permission and a planning officer attended the site and advised the contractor that planning would be required and that all work should cease until it had been obtained . Work did not cease and the store in its current form was completed and a retrospective application submitted.  Lowering the roofline would do little to improve this and he asked that Members go against the officer recommendation and move to take enforcement action.

Councillor Adam Dance, the other Ward Member, said the garden store should be located elsewhere in the garden and not in its current prominent position.  He said there was a lot of local opposition and he proposed that the application be refused permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Clare Paul.

In response to a question, the Development Management Lead Specialist confirmed that an officer had visited the site the previous Autumn and advised the owner to cease work.  He said that people were at liberty to continue in the knowledge that permission may be refused and enforcement action taken.   He also advised that Members were able to choose to refuse the application and, the applicant had the right to appeal any decision to refuse and any subsequent decision to take enforcement action, which would all take time.  They could also submit a further application to re-site the garden store in another location within the garden.

During discussion, Members felt the hedge should be reinstated and the entrance gate removed.  The proposal to refuse permission as put to the vote and carried (voting: 8 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

The Development Management Lead Specialist then asked Members what enforcement action they wished to take if any and it was suggested that officers discuss with the applicant the possibility of re-siting the garden store to a more appropriate position in the rear garden. A report on this conversation to be brought to the next available committee meeting for the committee to consider.

The garden store hereby proposed in terms of its size, setting materials and design is considered to cause harm to the character of the area and the heritage asset, contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

NB: A decision on the enforcement of the refusal to be held in abeyance pending a conversation with the applicant as to the possibility of re-siting the garden store to a more appropriate position in the rear garden. A report on this conversation to be brought to the next available committee meeting for the committee to consider.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)