Minutes:
The application before members was for an outbuilding to be used as a playroom/gym at the rear of the garden. The report detailed that the proposed structure measured 9.70m in width, 5.00m in depth with a hipped roof eaves height of 2.50m and ridge height of 3.70m. Two windows and double glazed doors would be included to the front elevation with one small window to the flank.
Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Jody Ganly on the grounds that the scale of the outbuilding was too large for a playroom/gym and concerns had been raised relating to the excessive amount of concrete that had been laid within the garden area.
In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant.
The objector raised concerns over the possible commercial use that the development could be put to in the future. The objector raised specific concerns about the hard standing concrete area that had been laid which could be used in association with the applicant's double glazing business. The objector also objected to the removal of mature trees; the increase in noise and traffic disruptions to the road.
In response the applicant stated that the proposed development was to be used as a playroom and gym. The applicant also commented that the hard standing concrete area at the rear of the garden was to be used to secure his vehicle. The applicant explained that he had no intention of operating a business from this premises.
With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee. Councillor Ganly commented that that there were concerns about the scale of the outbuilding as it appeared too large for a playroom and gym. Councillor Ganly also commented that a bathroom was to be installed as part of the development. Councillor Ganly commented that residents in Gardner Close were not notified of the application and that the development was in breach of policy DC 61. Councillor Ganly also commented that the development had an overbearing effect on a neighbouring property.
During the debate Members discussed the nature of the development, the extent of the hard standing and the potential for commercial use. Members gave consideration to the need for the self-employed to be able to park a commercial vehicle at a residential property.
The Committee also received clarification on whether a restriction on commercial vehicles could be imposed on the rear garden environment. Members were informed that the hard standing forming a drive way was permitted development and did not require planning permission.
Members had concerns that the rear building may be used for commercial purposes resulting in harm to the amenity of neighbours.
The report recommended that planning permission be granted however it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to enable officers to:
· clarify with the applicant, the exact intended use for the building and driveway;
· and consider whether a restriction on any commercial vehicle parking/movement anywhere in the rear garden environment would be enforceable.