Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

Ms. M. Gibson, representing objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Legally, this is a far more complex matter than whether a pavilion can be allowed in a front garden or anything to do with permitted development rights.

·         It is regarding a significant breach of a strict planning condition which residents had reasonable expectation that would be implemented.

·         The problem is that with the original consent for the large indoor swimming pool, there was a strict condition requiring the implementation of a compensatory green landscaping plan.

·         There was no suggestion of a large high roofed pavilion on a concrete plinth directly in front of the pool building where an open vista and lawn were marked on the original consented plan.

·         The officer handling the application for the pool had produced a fair and balanced report.  However, the binding plan had been cast aside and rendered impossible to implement by the moving of the pavilion.  Residents considered that this could not be fair.

·         The proposed new plan is inferior in its layout and now places the pavilion in an intrusive dominating position.  In its former position it caused no hindrance and no loss of privacies.

·         The report refers to evergreen screening borders.  However, in reality this is now only in areas near the house and pool.

·         The applicant had been informed by the County Council’s enforcement officer that if work continued to be carried out, it was at their own risk. Despite this, the pavilion was moved and a broad shingle and paved path was laid.

·         Neighbours question how after such a strict approval was imposed, another planning officer is recommending approval.

·         There are some inaccuracies within the report of the application.

Mr. M. Williams, applicant, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The applicant did not think he needed planning permission to move a garden hut from one side of his garden to the front of the garden when the swimming pool building was built.

·         It is in a better position now than originally positioned.

·         The hut was originally on a concrete plinth and is again on such a plinth in its new location.

·         The hut had power at its original location as well as in its new location.

·         The hut is not visible from a neighbour’s property.  In order to view the hut, the neighbour would have to open her gate.

·         The hut is in a better location now than originally placed.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members considered that the pavilion was better located in its current position and was not overbearing to the surrounding area.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor J. Becker that application DC/2017/01256 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval              -           15

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/01256 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.