Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Matthew Taylor, the agent and Richard Jones, the applicant. Mr Taylor stated that the officer’s presentation shows photographs which do not reflect the shed and show the material for the shed which has been covered for protection purposes. He explained that the framework was started a few months ago until it was realised that planning permission was required, and the tarpaulin covers the framework for all the walls, roof and slab base to protect it.

Mr Taylor explained that originally it did have a pitched roof on it, however, officers had advised that it would be too imposing on the street scene, so it has been revised to a flat roof. He explained that he has highlighted that parking in the vicinity is very bad and access for emergency vehicles is extremely poor, adding that the local Bowls Club is located there along with the local Public House which is busy, and the applicant is aiming to store one of his classic cars within the shed which will enable him to take one car off of the road and keep it on his driveway which will then free up space on the highway.

Mr Taylor explained that the flat roof is designed to sit slightly above the parapet wall and the view of the street scene at the side of the road all will be the visible top capping of a fibre glass roof which is likely to be a lead grey colour, a small amount of facia or gutter and the rest will be hidden behind the wall. He made the point that over the last 30 years there has been shed and greenhouses on the site and, in his view, planning permission should have been in place for those erections, however, that has not been the case and over the course of time sheds do need replacing and this is why the proposal is before the committee today.

Mr Jones stated that he moved into his property in 2002 and there have been structures in front of the property for 25 to 30 years which included 2 greenhouses and garden sheds of various sizes. He explained that he decided to erect a shed to house his classic car and motorcycle and he has been erecting sheds and replacing them with more substantial structures over the last 16 years and over that time there have been no complaints or objections from any neighbours from the passing public.

Mr Jones made the point that he cannot understand why the application to build a better garage style structure will have a detrimental effect on the Conservation Area or the buildings opposite. He explained that he decided last year to replace the timber shed with a more substantial better looking garage style structure and by moving it further down to the southern end of the garden in order not to impede the frontage of the house.

Mr Jones added that he appreciates that visually it does not look very nice, however,r it is just to protect the floor and the timber which is already in place.

Members asked Mr Taylor and Mr Jones the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what the footprint was of the existing shed that was there, compared to the size of the proposed structure? Mr Taylor stated that it is only slightly bigger and in the Design and Access Statement, the Heritage Impact Assessment shows pictures from the Listed Building opposite which is looking down onto the shed and it is only slightly wider. Councillor Imafidon asked for the measurements? Mr Jones explained that the shed that was there impeded into the front of the house and the shed that he erected in 2015 had a pitch roof on it and it was slightly longer than the proposed shed and the width was a bit narrower and, therefore, in length it is slightly a smaller footprint.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to the proposed site plan and asked whether it would be possible to move the shed back by 2 feet? He added that they have unequivocally stated that the plan shows the correct measurements and dimensions and that it will be used for storage. Councillor Gerstner added that for many years there has been a large van parked there used for business and he cannot see the difference between having a van parked there and having a shed on site, but his preference would be to see the shed there. He expressed the view that he would like to see the shed moved back a little bit in order that it is in keeping with the local area once the roof is added he does not see any issue with the proposal.

·         Councillor Hicks asked how high the wall is in comparison to the height of the proposed shed? Mr Jones stated that the wall is 2 metres high, and the proposed shed will be 2.2 metres high and, therefore, only slightly higher.

·         Councillor Benney asked whether Mr Jones has a conservatory or an extension at the rear of the house? Mr Jones confirmed that it is a conservatory which was built in 2004. Councillor Benney made the point that it would appear that Mr Jones has a side garden as his property as there is no depth in the plot and asked Mr Jones whether it is a fair assumption for him to say that he uses his garden for entertaining and for his personal use? Councillor Benney expressed the view that if the shed was moved back then it would encroach into the family’s personal space and affect the family and their lifestyle. Mr Jones stated that the assumption of Councillor Benney is correct and as he has an expanding family they would like to utilise the garden area and, therefore, the shed could not be moved into that space.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that the suggestion has been made with regards to moving the shed so that it is then in line with the existing property, but he questioned whether that will impact on the opening and closing of the shed? Mr Taylor stated that it would have an impact as the doors are facing the driveway and the ground level also raises up quite a bit into the garden and, therefore, the height of the building would then look taller. Councillor Imafidon asked whether it would be possible to consider and up and over style garage door and Mr Taylor explained that would then mean that the shed would end up taller as a different lintel would need to be used whereas the proposal includes normal stable doors which open out.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that if the applicant had a 3-metre-high touring caravan which is a mobile structure and can be moved at any time, which would be taller and coloured white would there be any planning issue. Gavin Taylor stated that there would be no issue as a caravan is mobile and the committee are considering lifetime developments and there is no guarantee that the current occupier would occupy that property forever. He added that caravans come and go whereas structures are permanent which is the difference in this case.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether there are no permitted developments on the site as it does not have a lot of amenity space and the wooden shed that was there before has been demolished and, in her opinion, it is just a replacement albeit slightly larger than what was already there. She added that she does not understand why the application is before the committee if they already have permitted development rights. Gavin Taylor stated that there are no permitted development rights to erect structures forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling which is the case with this application and, therefore, permitted development rights do not exist for this structure and planning permission did not exist for the previous structure either.

·         Councillor Marks stated that the applicant could choose to sell his home and move on leaving the shed behind and he asked whether a condition could be added to state that should that be the case that the shed would need to be dismantled. Gavin Taylor stated that you would need to be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to put a personal permission on and significant weight would have to be given to the personal circumstances of the individual as to why you would be granting a shed in that location rather than anywhere else. He added that at the last planning committee the issue of personalised permissions was discussed and the National Planning Policy Framework does not look at them favourably and the proposal before the committee is considering a permanent structure for the use associated with the dwelling but how the shed is used is beyond the control of the Council. Gavin Taylor made the point that even if a personalised permission was added for the individual because of how they are operating today in reality they could stop using that tomorrow for classic cars and just it for household storage and the Council would have no control over that. He made the point that the committee are considering a structure in association with the residential use of the dwelling. Councillor Marks asked whether it would be possible to add a condition to the application to state that if the resident chose to sell his property then he would have to take the structure down? Gavin Taylor explained that if the committee felt that it would be a reasonable condition to impose to place a burden on the resident to demolish a structure prior to vacating their property then a condition could be imposed but officers would not recommend that course of action. Councillor Marks expressed the view that he can only see a benefit where the resident can remove his vintage car from the highway and take another off of the highway onto his driveway.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the resident has had a shed on the site previously and has lived there since 2002. He expressed the view that if you own a vintage car, it is imperative that it is kept on your property in order for you to be able to maintain it and drive it when you want to, adding that if the committee are going to approve the application, in his opinion, it needs to be granted in its entirety and whilst he appreciates that circumstances can change that nothing should be conditioned and sometimes there needs to be an element of trust considered especially when a resident has lived there for 22 years.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that a wooden shed does not last indefinitely and, therefore, when it needs replacing will the applicant need to submit a new application? Troy Healy stated that as long as it is replaced liked for like then it is lawful to replace the structure.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that he will support the application, but it must be built exactly to the plan, and he would like to see the roof to be sympathetic to the surrounding area which would satisfy him. Troy Healy asked Councillor Gerstner to clarify whether he feels that a pitched roof would be more suitable? Councillor Gerstner stated that a pitched roof would be way out of character as the height would be above the line of the building, however, he would like to see something that could be colour matched to the brick wall. He added that there are many types of fibre glassed roofs available nowadays and, therefore, something that coordinates would be acceptable, but he does appreciate costs need to be considered for the applicant.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the applicant and agent could work with officers if the application is granted to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the executive summary in the officer’s report where it makes reference to the Conservation Area and also the fact that the site is located near to a Grade 2 Listed Building and he asked how far away does the site need to be in order for it not to be a relevant consideration? Gavin Taylor explained that there are no stipulations when considering distances from Listed Buildings. He added that it is normally with regards to the setting relative to the existing built form in the area and he made the point that there is more information contained within the officer’s report at 5.4 from the Conservation Officer which explains his considerations and what those impacts are and how he has considered them. Gavin Taylor added that there are no explicit set distances.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that the applicant wants the shed where he has planned it, and it is immaterial with regards to what he wants to use it for as it is about land usage. He added that to put it at the back would impede on his family’s social life and you do not want to have a shed at your back door you want it as far away from your door as is possible and that is where the applicant is choosing to erect it. Councillor Benney stated that the shed will be behind a brick wall and is protected and the applicant needs somewhere to keep his classic car. He expressed the view that he appreciates why officers have had to bring the application to the committee due to planning policy, however, in his opinion it should just be approved.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that it is his understanding from Councillor Benney that he feels that it is acceptable by virtue of the screening of the wall there is no harm to the Conservation Area or the character of the area. He added that with regards to the comments made by Councillor Gerstner concerning the roof materials, it maybe quite limiting with regards what can be done to make it sympathetic in terms of the area. Gavin Taylor explained that if a condition was to be added concerning the material details then he would assume that Councillor Gerstner and the Chairman would like to be involved with that process to ensure that they are happy with the proposed materials. Councillor Connor stated that he would be happy for officers to have delegated authority in consultation with Councillor Gerstner to apply appropriate conditions.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned whether the roofing material has already been purchased as it would be an unreasonable condition to add if the purchase has already taken place.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Jones whether the material for the roof have already been purchased and he confirmed that they had.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that he does not like this type of condition being applied to an application as it can mean additional expenses to the applicant. He added that sheds have a standard roofing material and when he went on the site visit the applicants house is in good order and he cannot envisage the applicant adding an inappropriate coloured roof to the shed.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application should be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider it to be detrimental to the area and the feel that the applicant is making very good use of a shed in order to store his classic car and motorbike.

(Councillor Gerstner declared that he knows the applicant and has had business dealings with him in the last 12 months but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind.)