Issue - meetings

The committee considered a retrospective application for the retention of a wooden shed, patio/raised platform and single storey rear extension.

Councillor Cundy and Councillor Leach, Ward Councillors attended the meeting.

The Chairman sought clarification on a 3-4 year temporary enforcement.

It was established that a 3-4 year temporary enforcement would be considered permanent planning permission.  The Development Manger commented that any temporary permission granted  would not meet the six tests set out in the government guidance.  He provided sound advice to the committee on options whilst considering the application. 

Councillor Morales reported that having visited the site, she thought that the shed was of a reasonable standard.  Although the garden space was limited it did not have a significant impact to the amenity space.  Councillor Morales sought clarification from the Planning Officer, on the possibility of enforcing on the extension alone. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the first recommended refusal reason related to the extension alone which included the impact to character of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, the second refusal related to both the shed and extension which resulted in unacceptable loss of private amenity space.

Councillor Morales proposed and it was seconded that the enforcement period be extended to 12 months.

Whilst acknowledging sympathy towards the applicant, members were advised that it was essential for the Committee to follow development plan policies  and to be mindful of practising consistency whilst considering applications brought before the Committee.

It was highlighted that if members were to consider the proposed motion of extending the compliance time period and only enforcing on the extension would result in reason 2 of the recommended refusal no longer valid.

Some Councillors had visited the site and came to the view that the shed was not of sturdy quality and agreed with the Officers recommendations.

It seemed that misunderstanding had occurred between the applicant and Planning Department.  Initially the applicant was in communication with New Vision Homes but now appreciates he much deal with the Planning Department.

Councillor Morales proposed and it was seconded for the amendment to exclude the enforcement on the removal of the shed.

Members were in agreement to amend the enforcement notice by deleting the removal of the shed, changing the enforcement period to 12 months and decided to proceed with recommended refusal reason one.

            RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused on the extension only and formal enforcement proceedings be authorise with a compliance period of 12 months