Agenda item

MJC introduced the application, saying Members on Planning View will have seen the existing summer house – the proposal is considerably larger, and the officer recommendation is to refuse.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Rowena Hay.

Public Speaking:

Mr Lawrence Tucker, applicant, in support

The existing summer house sits 0.5m off the boundary wall, behind a 10ft high hedge which has been in front of the established building line for more than 25 years.  The garden is 461 square metres, of which the existing summerhouse takes up 2% and the proposed takes up an addition 4.4% - so not a huge amount.  Referring to Policy BE1, the report states that the location of the proposed summerhouse will erode open space and be out of keeping, but does not think that the additional space of 4.4% of the garden erodes open space significantly, and has there has been a summerhouse on the site for a quarter of a century, so it cannot be out of keeping.  The report also says that, under Policy CP3, the proposal would be a large and alien addition, but this is an exaggeration, as summerhouses are normally found in gardens, and under CP3(c) it could actually be said to conserve and enhance the built and natural environment, making a significant contribution to the character, appearance and amenity of the site.   The report also says that the proposal fails to comply with policy CP7, but the application is not for an extension or alteration to existing building, so this policy is not valid, and states that the existing summerhouse is unassuming and incidental.  If this is the case, what size would it have to be to be considered assuming and significant – an acceptable size is not quantified.  Is willing to negotiate on size if necessary, but there is no evidence that the summer house will detract from the area and no indication of how the harmful effect is measured – therefore cannot understand this opinion.  Has been in discussion with the planning officer since Tuesday, and understands that replacing the summerhouse like for like may be acceptable.

Member debate:

PT:  asked for a clear illustration of the building on the screen.

BF:  surprised this application is at Committee at all.  The site is in the conservation area, but Pittville Circus Road is only 6 feet away and the proposed summerhouse cannot be seen from there.  There would be concerns if the hedge or wall was taken down, but the reality is that there is currently a dilapidated summerhouse which has been there a long time and has planning permission by default, and it would be OK to replace this like for like.  Is minded to approve – has a summerhouse himself, and enjoys sitting out in it on a summer evening.  It is not a dwelling, but will allow the applicant to spend quiet hours in his garden, which is very large.  The summerhouse will not do anyone any harm.  Agrees with the applicant – this is making something out of nothing – and moves to approve.

KS:  did not go on Planning View, but has looked at the site since, and couldn’t see the existing summerhouse from the road.  Suggests that the parked cars outside do more harm to the conservation area.  Supports BF’s move to approve.

AM:  cannot understand why the recommendation is for refusal.  The reasons suggested in the report are very thin.  Would like the officer to justify her recommendation.

BD:   this is a good example of why it is so important to go on Planning View.  The proposal is huge; the existing summerhouse is small.  The proposed summerhouse is like a train going along the bottom of the garden, and you could hold a dance in there.

LG:  when is a summerhouse not a summerhouse?  When it looks like a cricket pavilion.  The proposal is out of proportion.  Has seen a lot of summerhouses, but it is over-use of the English language to describe the proposal as one.

SW:  agrees with both sides of the argument.  Yes, the proposal is large.  Was not on Planning View, but has looked on Google Earth and cannot see the existing summerhouse.  The proposal is larger, but still won’t be seen from outside, being lost behind the hedge.  Will be happy to approve the application.

CC:  a lot of Members are still wanting to speak, and there has been a lot of mention of the hedge.  If the proposal is permitted, can a condition be added to ensure the retention of the hedge?

BF:  LG said the proposal is like a cricket pavilion, but he has played all over Gloucestershire, and you wouldn’t get 11 men inside this summerhouse.

PT:  it is a big building; the hedge is old and sparse, and the summerhouse may well be seen through it.  If it was reduced in size by a third, could say yes to it, but not at its current size – it is too big.

MS:  agrees with PT.  Would vote is support for a smaller summerhouse, but why set a precedent for such a large one?  We should adhere to our own policies. 

AC:  there have been no objections to the proposal other than from ourselves.  No-one can see it from outside.  Agrees with a condition to maintain the hedge, then the only person to see it will be the applicant.

BF:  notes that the refusal reason refers to the application site being located in the conservation area, but that there is no comment from the Conservation and Heritage Officer and that she is not present at the meeting.

MJC, in response:

-          regarding comments from the Conservation and Heritage Manager, said the application had been discussed with her, and the main consideration from her point of view is always whether a proposal will preserve or enhance the conservation area.  Having consulted with the Central Conservation Area character appraisal, this states that Pittville Circus Road has a sense of spaciousness, openness, historic building line, and properties set back from the road.  Hayes Road enhances this;

-          officers can accept the existing summerhouse in situ, and if the application was to replace like for like, would have no objection.  It is a discreet building in the garden, but the proposal goes beyond what is acceptable and compromises the spaciousness;

-          there is currently a hedge in situ which screens the summerhouse from the street, but the concern is with the view from the south east, across the neighbouring property, Ballaghy. From here, there will be clear views of the structure, in a prominent position in the public realm;

-          the proposal will not preserve the openness and spaciousness of the conservation area, and is therefore contrary to policy;

-          regarding a condition to retain the hedge, this is possible but there will need to be specific wording in terms of height, replacement of failing parts of the hedge etc.  If Members permit the proposal, officers will formulate an appropriate condition to be agreed by the Chair and Vice Chair, with Members’ approval.  This would be reasonable, but does not mitigate all aspects.

LG:  how long would such a condition last?  A hedge doesn’t last for ever.

AM:  on the point of being able to see the building from the south west, can’t the existing summer house be seen now?

MJC, in response:

-          to AM, the existing summerhouse cannot be seen as the hedge has grown up and around it, practically ‘consuming’ it.  The proposal is wider and there is more of it to see – it will be visible where the existing structure is not;

-          a condition for a hedge is not one we regularly include and there is no standard condition here.  Landscaping conditions usually last for five years to allow a scheme to become established, but this is different – the hedge is already established, but what Members are asking is that we ensure that it stays or is replaced.  As a screen to the summerhouse, it could possibly be reasonable to require the hedge to stay as long as the summerhouse.  Can put together a condition and report back via the Chair and Vice-Chair.

KS:  the hedge is quite tall.  Is the outbuilding higher than the existing hedge?  Hayes Road is not quite as significant as Pittville Circus Road in the conservation area – could the summerhouse be erected in a different part of the garden?  Has this been discussed with the applicant?

RW:  there is a lot of concern about the conservation area, which is right and proper, but it is there to be our servant, not our master, and applications such as this are the reason why we need a planning committee – so that decisions are not simply mechanical.  It is up to the Committee to decide and how much weight to give to the proposal being in the conservation area.  Does not see why it can’t be conditioned that a hedge must be there as long as the summerhouse is – if it dies, another hedge can be planted.

MJC, in response:

-          the hedge is taller is taller than the current and the proposed summerhouse – it would take a long time to grow to this size if replaced.

Vote on BF’s move to permit, with a condition to retain the hedge

6 in support

9 in objection

REFUSE