Agenda item

Erect garden summer house

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site location plans, aerial photographs, site photographs and proposed drawings, the Case Officer identified the application site and outlined the proposed development and relevant planning policies. Members were advised that the site shared a boundary with the Grade I listed Church of St Mary. The site location, surrounding context and development proposals were explained. Officers highlighted the presence of a Wessex Water foul drainage pipeline crossing the site and noted the associated easement area, within which no building works could take place.

The Committee was shown both the original and amended plans. Officers explained that the proposal had been revised to reduce the overall size of the building, including a reduction in depth to approximately 5 metres and a further reduction in height of 25 centimetres. Details of the proposed materials were outlined, comprising a slate roof, natural timber cladding and dark grey fenestration.

In considering the impact on neighbouring amenity, officers advised that the nearest residential property was located to the south-west of the site, with other neighbouring properties set back at a similar distance from Palms Lane. It was considered that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse impact on residential amenity. Members were informed that the dwelling known as Amanita was located approximately 7.5 metres from the development site. Officers also noted that existing natural screening would assist in reducing impacts and that no windows were proposed in the eastern or western elevations, therefore limiting opportunities for overlooking.

The impact on heritage assets was assessed, with officers advising that the Grade I listed parish church was situated on the opposite side of the site and approximately 150 metres from the application site. It was concluded that the proposal would cause no significant harm to the setting of the listed church. Officers also drew attention to a semi-mature cherry tree located to the south-west of the site and a further mature tree identified as T7. Tree protection measures, including protective fencing during construction, were proposed and could be secured by condition.

Public Participation

Scott Black (Applicant)

He explained that he had built his family home and that the property included approximately 3.5 acres of land. He stated that additional storage was required to accommodate the needs of his growing family, including the storage of a small tractor used for grass cutting and other equipment required for the maintenance of the property.

He advised that he currently lacked sufficient storage space and was relying on temporary storage facilities. He informed Members that he had sought informal advice from a conservation officer regarding the design and appearance of the proposed outbuilding. He stated that the proposed cedar-clad building with a slate roof would be more appropriate to the setting than a conventional prefabricated shed with a felt roof, which would require replacement or significant repair within a relatively short period.

The applicant advised that the size of the outbuilding had been restricted in accordance with permitted development guidelines and that it would be located within the curtilage of the property. He explained that concerns raised during the consideration of the dwelling had related to its visibility from the Grade I listed church and the adjoining road. Consequently, the proposed outbuilding had been positioned so that it would not be visible from either the church or the road and would only be seen from an unadopted cul-de-sac track, as referenced in the officer’s report.

He further noted that there were a number of other properties in the surrounding area with one or more outbuildings, some of a similar scale, located on smaller plots of land. He concluded by informing the Committee that no objections had been received from neighbouring residents and that only comments had been submitted by a Ward Member and the Parish Council.

Members questions and comments

• Members commented that the proposal appeared to be a well-designed garden room and expressed support for the application.
• Members noted that the proposal had been amended and reduced in scale during the application process and welcomed these changes. Reference was made to an existing storage container on the site, and Members asked whether a condition could be imposed requiring its removal once the proposed outbuilding had been completed and brought into use.
• Clarification was sought regarding the site layout, with a Member asking whether the footprint of the proposed building, as shown on the plans, corresponded with the location of the existing polytunnel.
• Members confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed planning conditions discussed during the meeting.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Pothecary.

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.