Agenda item

Erection of summer house to rear (retrospective).  [Site Visit] [Westfield Ward]

Members considered a full application from Miss Claire Bonner for the erection of a summer house in the rear garden (retrospective).

Officers advised that 3 additional neighbour objections had been received making the following comments (in addition to those contained within the agenda):

·         The building is far too large and not at all in keeping with most other temporary buildings in the area.

·         The building is obtrusive and stands at least 1.5m above the fence boundary at 60 Hobgate

·         The committee report states that a similar structure could be built under permitted development.  This development is not permitted development as it exceeds the maximum sizing by a reasonable amount and the permitted development regulations are irrelevant to this matter.  This requires planning permission and therefore planning regulations should be applied.

·         Permission should be denied as the report admits that the development doesn’t sit within the numerous relevant policies and is prominent in views of neighbours.

·         The development is not a summer house but a permanent structure

·         The presence of a culvert adjacent to the development has apparently been ignored and other risk assessment factors have not been considered before building work commenced.

·         Allowing the development to be retained would not contribute to the overall improvement of the area, it would detract from it.  Nor would it contribute to the housing shortage as it is an outbuilding.

·         The erection of the structure has caused considerable stress and worry to the neighbours directly involved.

·         Neighbour concerns re. log burner and bar have not been addressed at all – if this development goes ahead it is more akin to a residence/pub than a summer house.  There is concern about how it would be used and the likely disturbance (noise).

·         The development breaches both policies GP1 and H7.

Mr Frank Walsh, a neighbour, addressed the committee in objection to the application. He raised concerns that he had contacted the planning department once in July and twice in Sept 2015 to voice his and neighbours’ concerns over what was being built but he had not had a response until the building was nearly complete. He stated that the proposals showed it exceeded permitted rights by 300mm and that officers acknowledged that the building was not in keeping with surrounding structures. He stated that a culvert had been put in place following the flooding of a beck some years ago and residents told they could not build on it but the applicant had appeared to have ignored this advice and he questioned whether any drainage provision been put in place.

Claire Bonner, the applicant, then addressed the committee in support of her application. She assured members that they had not exceeded the maximum permitted height on purpose, but had done their research and read the technical guidance on the planning portal website and followed this as they understood it. She stated that building work had commenced in August but by the time the council requested a visit it was nearly complete with the roof on. She assured members that apart from the extra 300mm in height, the building complied with permitted development rules and had been built to the specifications they had been led to believe were correct. She explained how they intended to use the building. She expressed dismay that the neighbours  had not approached them earlier to voice their concerns and apologised for any upset caused.

With regard to the culvert, officers confirmed that the culvert would normally be in the ownership of whoever’s land it crossed and the owner had a duty to maintain it. As City of York Council was the enforcing drainage authority, if any future damage was made to the culvert, it would have the power to enforce any work needed.

Members accepted that building had been built slightly too high based on a misunderstanding of the rules, resulting from the difference in ground levels, rather than a flagrant disregard of the rules. They acknowledged that the structure was very prominent and visible to surrounding neighbouring properties but did not feel that the additional 300mm made a material difference to the impact of the structure on neighbours compared to how it would appear if it had been built to the height allowed under permitted development rights.

Resolved:      That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Reason:         Whilst the development is not overly large in the context of the size of the back garden, its positioning close to the boundary makes it somewhat prominent in views from a number of neighbouring properties.  Its design does not sit comfortably with guidance given in the NPPF, draft Local Plan policies GP1 and H7 or the Council's House Extensions and Alterations SPD in respect of its appearance.  However, under permitted development rights a very similar structure with very similar impacts could be constructed without the need for planning permission.