At the Planning Committee meeting on 10th March 2021, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.
Minutes:
At the Planning Committee meeting on 10th March 2021, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration. The Committee therefore had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration setting out the implications of refusal.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report and reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted site location plan, floor plan, elevations, side view plan and photographs of the exterior and interior of the cabin.
The officer explained that the cabin appeared immune from enforcement action as it has been in situ for 4 years, as information had been received it was in situ in June 2017, and was to be used as ancillary to the house.
In response to public questions he responded:
· The WC was not mentioned on the implications report as it was not part of the original reasons for refusal
· The quality of the building was subject to building regulations
· Distance from neighbouring boundaries was not a policy requirement
· Access for maintenance was a civil issue and was no different than extensions built on boundary lines
· There was no planning policy which determined how far out building had to be constructed away from an existing boundary
· It was not considered that additional soundproofing is required
· The use of the outbuilding was a consideration for Members
· An implication report must include possible outcomes for Members if an appeal was lodged against refusal
· Any breach of conditions would be at risk from possible enforcement action from MDDC
· The LPA had not deliberately withheld the application, the applicant wanted to make changes after the last planning committee to alleviate Members concerns over the size of the decking
· Concerns were received in 2019 but an enforcement file was closed following an investigation because the use was considered to be within permitted development rights
Consideration was given to:
Therefore the Committee RESOLVED that: planning permission be refused for the following reason:
In the opinion of the Local Authority, the proposed outbuilding in terms of its size, appearance and location on an elevated site is not considered to make a positive contribution to the local character of the area. The development is considered to adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by virtue of unacceptable overlooking and its overbearing nature, with inadequate justification provided for the proposed ancillary accommodation on site. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies DM1 and DM11 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)
Reason for the Decision: As set out in the report
Notes:
i.) *report previously circulated and attached to the minutes
ii.) Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, B Holdman, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch MBE and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from objectors
iii.) Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, P J Heal, D J Knowles and E J Berry requested that their vote against the decision to recorded
iv.) In the event of an appeal Cllrs S J Clist and Cllr F W Letch would defend the decision.
Supporting documents: