Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the location and photographs of the site.  He gave no further updates to the report and explained to members that this was a retrospective planning permission which had been created to transform a potentially hazardous outdoor space into a safe area for the applicant’s young children to play.

He clarified that the applicant’s own the top floor flat and that they have ownership over the land at the front.  He confirmed that the occupiers of the ground floor flat were happy with the decking area and have young children who play on the decking with the applicant’s children.

The Planning Officer referred to the key considerations being the impact upon residential and visual amenity and although appreciated the current agreement of both owners of the flats advised that this application would be for the permanent retention of the decking.  He explained that should the occupiers of either flat change at any time this could result in an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring property. 

He concluded that whilst it is proposed planting will be undertaken to further minimise the impact he considers the structure to be unsuitable for the surrounding streetscene, be of poor design and have an adverse impact upon the neighbouring properties.  Whilst he understands the applicant’s position his recommendation is for refusal for reasons set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, the Development Manager and Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         Any development located to the front of a property and any decking over 300mm in height required planning permission.

·         Members may consider whether the proposed measures to mitigate the impact would be acceptable.

·         A Legal Agreement would not normally be appropriate to impose restrictions on individuals and their current personal circumstances.

Evelyn Potts-Jones representative of Yeovil Town Council addressed the committee.  She confirmed that the Town Council were in support of the application and that with the proposed additional planting felt the structure did not have a severe impact on the streetscene.  She believed it to be a good use of space in which to aid the health and well-being of the applicant and their children.  She noted there had been no objection from the owners of the ground floor flat and understood that a condition could be imposed for the removal of structure should the flat be sold in the future.

Amy Davey, the applicant then addressed the committee.  She was unaware that planning permission was required for the decking area and that due to the current financial housing market situation both her and the owner of the ground floor flat had been unable to move to other properties with outside space for their children to play.  She explained the design of the decking was to ensure that passing traffic and pedestrians were unable to see the young children playing in their swimwear, to minimise the sound of the traffic and be able to screen and hang her washing out.  She confirmed the proposal to soften the structure with additional planting and that the area was of huge benefit to both her and the owner of the ground floor flat who also had young children and was a safe environment in which the children could play. 

Charlotte Johnstone then addressed the committee confirming that she was the owner of the ground floor flat and in full support of the application.  She explained the huge benefits the decking area also provided for the health and well-being of her children especially as there were no suitable nearby open spaces or parks in which the children could play together safely.

Councillor Rob Stickland, Ward member spoke in support of the application and appreciated the proposal to soften the structure with additional planting.  He believed it was not out of keeping with the area and referred to a similar structure built at the front of a nearby property.  He felt consideration should be given to the health and well-being of the children and this was an excellent provision and transformed what was a hazardous area into a safe environment in which the children could play.  He wished to support the application subject to discussion and agreement with the planning officers with regard to the planting and landscaping scheme.  He wished it noted that Councillor Tony Lock also a Ward member reiterated these comments and was in support of the application.

Councillor David Recardo, Ward member felt the application to have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area.  While at the present time there are no objections he recognised that this application is for the permanent retention of the decking and therefore should ownership change in the future this could result in an adverse impact both upon residential and visual amenity of the ground floor flat.  He understood the nearby similar structure was in the ownership of one property and did not believe the land to be suitable for the additional planting proposed.  He appreciated the applicant’s position but on this basis could not support the application.

During member’s discussion, several comments were made including:

·         Considered it a removable structure and therefore can be conditioned to eradicate should future owners wish to remove it.

·         Believed the proposed planting will further minimise the impact of the decking area.

·         Differing views when approaching the site and therefore not considered to be a visual amenity issue or massively incongruous in the streetscene.

·         Understood temporary planning permission could be granted given the current circumstances as believing it to be a huge benefit to the health and well-being of the owners and their families of both flats.

·         Concerns regarding anti- social behaviour would be applicable whether the decking area remained or not.

·         Believed the well-being and safety of the children was main consideration and with the improvements to use sympathetic planting outweighs any other issues.

·         Understood that there is a legal covenant which restricts development in front of the building line.

In response to comments made, the Development Manager advised members that:

·         Should a temporary permission be granted it could be difficult to defend the reason for removal after a five year period.

·         Temporary permission not usually granted for the sole purpose of the current individual and their circumstances.  An additional condition could be imposed by reason of the structure being constructed of material which are likely to deteriorate and therefore could have an adverse effect upon the visual amenity in the future.

·         Condition could be imposed for the implementation of an agreed planting scheme

It was also confirmed that the legal covenant is a civil matter and not a consideration in the application.

Following further debate members wished to voice their frustration that the social benefits of such an application are not thought to be a planning consideration. They believed that the granting of a temporary planning permission would aid the social benefits and the health and well-being of the owners and their children.

Members also believed that the Authority should look to encourage healthy lifestyles and that the granting of temporary permission would be justified due to the particular circumstances and due it being a wooden structure and its wear and tear.  

The Development Manager reiterated to members there was no guarantee that should temporary permission be granted the decking would be removed after a certain timeframe.

A short adjournment was taken in order to ascertain the satisfactory wording for the reason for approval to this application to ensure that the social benefits of this application are warranted and that the current structure does not adversely affect the residential or visual amenity and that a landscaping scheme is imposed to aid the screening of the decking.

The Development Manager then proceeded to read out the reasons for approval and the four conditions proposed:

Conditions included:

1.    The standard time limit be amended to reflect the retrospective nature of the proposal.

2.    Within 3 months of the date of this permission the decking shall be repainted in accordance with details shall have first been in accordance with the planning authority.

3.    Within 3 months of the date of this permission landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with details that have been submitted to and perfectly maintained.

4.    The decking hereby approved shall be removed on or before 1 Nov 2012 and the land returned to its former state. For the reason to allow reconsideration of the visual impact of the structure. A new application will therefore need to be made in five years’ time to renew it.

Justification:

Due to the particular circumstances of the proposed development it is considered to be acceptable and not adversely affect residential or visual amenity.

There being no further debate, it was proposed and subsequently seconded that the application be approved contrary to the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda and as per the wording read out by the Development Manager.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 11 votes in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That application 16/03200/FUL be approved subject to:

Grant permission for the following reason:

Due to the particular circumstances of the proposed development it is considered to be acceptable and not adversely affect residential or visual amenity in accordance with Policy EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

1)    Notwithstanding the time limits given to implement planning permission as prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), this permission (being granted under section 73A of the Act in respect of development already carried out) shall have effect from the 9 June 2016.

            Reason:  To comply with Section 73A of the Act.

2)    Within 3 months of the date of this permission the external elevations of the decking shall be repainted in accordance with details that have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy           EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028).

3)    (i) Within 3 months of the date of this decision, a landscaping scheme, which shall include details of the species, siting and numbers to be planted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(ii) The scheme shall be completely carried out within the first available planting season from the date of commencement of the development, or as otherwise extended with the agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

(iii) For a period of three years after the completion of the planting scheme, the trees and shrubs shall be protected and maintained and any trees or shrubs that cease to grow shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species, or the appropriate trees or shrubs as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028).

4)    The raised decking hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 1 November 2021.

Reason: The structure is constructed of materials which are likely to deteriorate and which would have an adverse effect upon the visual amenities of the area contrary to Policy EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028).

(voting 11 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)