Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the significant unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties by virtue of its scale and position. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 March 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that the local Member had requested a site visit to allow Members to see the impact of the shed on the neighbours.  One letter of objection had been received on the grounds of loss of view from the rear of the neighbouring property and the adverse affect on the amenity.  The recommendation included a condition that there should be no windows or doors in the east elevation of the building.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal did not significantly affect the amenity of the neighbour and that the application should therefore be approved.

Councillor Alison Halford raised concern about Members requesting site visits and then not attending either the site visit or the Committee meeting.  She felt that the amenity of the neighbour would be adversely affected and that the shed could be sited elsewhere within the hotel grounds.  Councillor Ian Dunbar said that this was a retrospective application and as some of the sheds in this area of the site had already been moved, he saw no reason why this shed could not also be moved.  He raised concern at the height of the roof and referred to the loss of sunlight into the neighbour’s property due to the positioning of the shed.  Councillor Richard Lloyd also raised concern about the roof which was at its highest point nearest the fence bordering the neighbour’s property which could result in the property being overlooked.  He felt that the proposal was overbearing, the shed overshadowed the garden, and agreed that it could be moved.  Councillor Derek Butler concurred that the proposal should be refused and in raising concern that this was a retrospective application stated that it would be refused even if this was not the case.   In his view, the shed could have been put further down the slope

            The officer said that the fact that the application was retrospective did not make it wrong and that if it was unacceptable then enforcement action could have been undertaken.  He added that the condition that there should be no windows or doors in the east elevation of the building would prevent overlooking. 

            In summing up, Councillor Roberts reiterated his comment that the proposal did not significantly affect the amenity currently enjoyed by the neighbour and added that the application could not be refused because it was felt that it should be sited elsewhere.  He raised concern about costs that might be awarded against the Council if the applicant appealed and was successful in gaining planning permission.  In response, the Principal Solicitor said that costs would not necessarily be awarded if the application was refused by Committee and the applicant appealed.  A costs award depended upon the Council acting unreasonably.  In his opinion, it was unlikely that a costs award would be made in cases of this nature. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was LOST on the grounds of the application having a significant impact on the residential amenity of the neighbour. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the significant unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties by virtue of its scale and position.