Agenda item

The Planning Assistant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She told members that this was a retrospective application seeking permission for the retention of the shed for use to store medical supplies for one of the occupants of the property.

The Planning Assistant noted to members that the applicants were unable to be present at the meeting due to regular hospital appointments they were required to attend.  She also referred to the comments from Yeovil Town Council who considered the application to be out of keeping with the existing area due to its location and design.  She concluded that should members be minded to refuse the application consideration should be given to instigating formal enforcement action.

Following questions, the Planning Assistant and Area Lead South clarified to members that:

·         Confirmed the use of the shed was wholly for the purpose of storing medical supplies for the applicant’s son.

·         Considered the form and scale of the shed acceptable and it would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area.

·         Prior to the application being submitted the applicants were invited to relocate the shed into the back garden behind the current timber fencing.  The applicants decided not to follow this option however they would be happy to screen the shed by some means should this condition be imposed.

·         The house is part owned by both Yarlington Housing group and the applicants.  The application had been submitted by the applicant with the support of Yarlington Housing group.

·         Applicants permitted to re-submit another application free of charge within the next year.

·         The reason for the development is not a material planning consideration that should be given significant weight.

Councillor Tony Lock, Ward member voiced his concern of the application.  He noted Yeovil Town Council comments and also believed the application to be out of keeping with the existing area due to its location and design.  He said the property was located within an area that had recently been regenerated and would set a precedent for future applications of this type.  He appreciated the circumstances of the applicants but believed the shed could be re-located to the other side of the current fencing with a means of continual access to the shed and therefore would not support the application.

Councillor Rob Stickland, Ward member reiterated the comments already made by Councillor Tony Lock and although sympathised with the applicants’ circumstances believed the purpose of the shed was not a planning consideration.

Councillor David Recardo, Ward member also voiced his concerns of the application.  He said the area had recently undergone significant redevelopment and felt the re-location of the shed to the other side of the timber fencing would be more appropriate.

During members’ discussion, several comments were made including the following:

·         The proposal fails to enhance the area or promote the aims of high quality design.

·         Set a precedent for other applications of this type in the area.

·         Appreciate the applicants’ circumstances but understood the purpose of the shed was not a planning consideration.

·         The shed could be re-located to the other side of the current fencing with a means of continual access.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area South Lead:

‘The proposed development, due to its location, design and materials is not in keeping with the existing area and therefore does not accord with the aims and objectives of policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028)’.

Members were happy to delegate that Officer’s investigate formal enforcement action.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 15/03206/FUL be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development, due to its location, design and materials is not in keeping with the existing area and therefore does not accord with the aims and objectives of policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

(voting: unanimous)