Agenda item

At the request of Councillor Clucas, the Chairman agreed to consider Item 4, 18/01812/FUL 42 Riverview Way first.

Officer Introduction:

GD introduced the application, for an extension of the extant planning permission granted in 2016 for a temporary metal storage shed until 31^st December 2018.  The applicant would like to extend the permission by 12 months.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Clucas.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Swanton, applicant, in support

42 Riverview Way is a mid-terrace property with no external access to the rear garden, making it impossible to have any significant storage capacity in that area, as the only access is through the house.   This makes it critical to have some sort of accessible storage to the front of the house, but the front garden area is not an option as the Riverview square is open plan.  The shed is built on an existing concrete base laid down during the original estate development; all the houses at the end of Riverview have single garage concrete bases to the rear or side of the properties.  Some owners have constructed garages, some have not. The concrete bases for Nos. 40 and 42 are one shared platform alongside the garden of No. 38, and it is unsurprising that the owner of No. 42 wants to place a building on the existing concrete base.  Chose a purpose-designed steel security shed as security is the most important factor, following a number of thefts from the property.  The shed is sectional, and can be removed on departure for use at a future property.  The low roofline and green finish are intended to minimise local impact; neighbours have garden sheds, one of which is taller, immediately adjacent to one side and to the rear of the metal shed.  In response to Parish Council comments, the ‘temporary’ reference in the original application refers to the applicant’s intention to relocate, not to any short-term need for extra storage.  Has permanent need to store tools and equipment.  No further extension will be required beyond the end of 2019. The neighbour has referred to noise from the shed, but this was only during construction; ongoing noise is negligible – the shed is not a workshop, has no power, and simply provides essential secure storage.

Councillor Clucas, in objection

Asked for this application to come to Committee as there are a number of things to be clarified. An existing concrete base has been used to build this structure upon; the structure itself is steel.  Is not aware that the look of the structure is a matter of debate or discussion.  The two main issues are as follows:  firstly, the metal nature of this particular structure is causing considerable distress to those nearby by; it is particularly noisy and causing real distress.  Secondly, the applicant previously stated that a further period of planning permission would not be required, but the consistent matter of temporary permissions being applied for and becoming permanent is also causing great concern.  Would like recognition of noise nuisance, and also recognition that temporary permission can become permanent if it is renewed year by year.  Realises we cannot say no to planning consent – but should be much more strict.

Member debate:

MC:  the applicant said he wouldn’t be seeking to extend this application.  How many times can a temporary planning permission be extended?  He may need to extend again.  Is it appropriate to keep applying for temporary planning permission?  The applicant explained the reasons for the original application, but what equals temporary, and how many times can it be extended?

PM:  is intrigued that the estate was built with concrete bases – they must be there for a purpose.  If the original application had been for a permanent structure, rather than a temporary one, would it have been permitted?

RW:  the main objections are on noise grounds.  If it was a wooden shed rather than a metal one, would it be reasonable to suppose such a shed would get permanent permission?  If the shed was to be replaced by a wooden one, would planning permission be needed to make the change?  The shape and size of the shed is governed by the foundation; are the materials relevant?

PB:  on Planning View, wondered what Members were doing looking at this proposal – it is a very smart shed.  Only now, after re-reading the neighbour’s objections, realises that noise is the issue.  Is it possible to include a condition on the hours of use of the shed, or restrict its use for noisy purposes out of daytime hours?  The applicant makes a strong case, but the neighbour has a strong case too.

BF: following on from MC’s comments, has known cases in which one temporary planning permission is extended with another and another, and in a certain time the temporary permission becomes a permanent one without any reference back.   It becomes a permanent planning permission by degrees, and this is not right.  Understands the need for storage, but metal buildings are noisy by nature.  If storage is needed on a permanent basis, why not build a permanent structure of brick, block or timber?

GD, in response:

-       To MC and BF, regarding the number of times a temporary permission can be extended, it is rarely justified to grant a second temporary permission – it is more normal for a temporary permission to become a permanent one;

-       The original application was for two years, and there was no presumption that the temporary permission would become permanent.  However, if an application was made for a permanent structure in this location, officers would support it;

-       To RW, the size and nature of the shed would normally be classed as permitted development, but there are no permitted development rights in Riverview Way.  In addition, the shed is outside the curtilage of the property;

-       To PB, regarding restricted hours of use, this would have to be justified as reasonable or necessary, and such a condition would fail on that – it would not be considered so in this instance;

-       To PM, is not sure of the original purpose of the concrete base.

SC:  is puzzled. The applicant said noise only arose when the shed was constructed, so why does the neighbour consider it to be so noisy?  It isn’t a workshop.  If noise is the only issue, could a condition be included to ensure that the shed is only used as a storage facility and not as a workshop?  This would be OK.

RW:  to clarify SC’s point, if the metal storage shed was a commercial building, could imagine noise would arise in that situation, every time the door was opened and closed, at any time of day or night.  Could any sound-proofing be installed?

KS:  if the application was for a permanent structure, officers say they would support it.  Is curious about what is being sought here.  This is an expensive structure.  It is difficult to refuse, but is concerned as to how a shed could give rise to noise nuisance.  Is very torn – it is a nice-looking structure, of great use to the applicant – how can it be such a noise nuisance as Councillor Clucas has said it is?  Have there been any complaints to CBC about the noise, the hours of noise etc?

GD, in response:

-       On the noise issue, the structure is metal, and could be erected in any garden with PD rights, without any requirement for planning permission.  The noise would be the same in that instance; the shed only needs planning permission here because there are no PD rights;

-       If the shed was to be converted into a workshop, it would need planning permission, but it is only intended for storage use, and noise is only likely to occur as and when it is accessed.  It is not possible to control when this takes place.

NJ, in response:

-       Noise issues are separate to planning, and a statutory enforcement issue.  It does not come under the auspices of planning.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT