Erection of a single storey detached garden outbuilding (part retrospective) for incidental use to serve a swim spa/pool and sauna

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application. 

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the report.  He advised that the application (part retrospective) sought the erection of a single storey detached garden outbuilding for incidental use to serve as a swim spa/pool and sauna with ancillary WC, shower and changing facilities.

The Chair invited Collin Welling, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Welling explained the frustration of local residents regarding this development, which had continued despite objections by planning officers and in disregard to the plans and design details submitted with the application.  This had included the unauthorised removal of a mature tree with a tree preservation order.

With the agreement of the Chair, Mr Welling circulated some photographs to the committee.

Neighbours were concerned about the personal abuse they had received from the applicant and urged the committee to consider the wider implications of permitting this type of unauthorised back garden development in the future.

The Chair invited Steven Peters, the applicant, to speak for the application.  Mr Peters refuted the claims of local residents, explaining that he had worked with the council’s planning and enforcement officers to devise and build what he had understood to be a permissible scheme.  The building replaced an existing structure and was intended to be used for recreational purposes only.

He further advised that the mature tree (with preservation order) had been removed after taking advice from the arboricultural officer and had since been replaced.

The Chair invited Nascot Ward Councillor Jane Johnson to speak to the committee.  Councillor J Johnson was critical of the applicant, who she argued had deliberately flouted planning rules, intimidating neighbours and ignoring the advice of officers, in order to build a large structure which was intended to be used as a self-contained dwelling.  Granting retrospective permission would send a green light to similar developments in the borough.

Councillor J Johnson suggested that a decision on the application be deferred until the s.106 agreement set out in the officer’s report had been signed.  In addition, she asked for the minutes to record that, if retrospective planning permission were granted, officers should actively monitor the structure to ensure that it was being used appropriately.  Should this fail to be the case, prompt enforcement action should be taken.

In a clarification, the Development Management Team Leader confirmed that the s.106 undertaking went with the land and would therefore apply to subsequent owners of the property.  The existence of the s.106 undertaking would enable the council to go directly to the courts should a breach occur.

Although some members of the committee expressed concern about reports of intimidation by the applicant towards his neighbours, it was acknowledged that the committee’s role was to consider the planning merits and not to arbitrate between the parties. 

Following further advice from the Development Management Team Leader, committee members considered that the stated use for the proposed structure was incidental to the main dwelling house.  This use would be formalised by the proposed s.106 undertaking, which would be monitored by enforcement officers.

In granting planning permission, members of the committee determined that the development should be carried out fully in accordance with the drawings submitted to the council.  This included the materials for the external walls and roof (set out in Condition 3 below).

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

A)        That planning permission be granted, subject to the completion of a s.106 unilateral undertaking by 14th December 2018, to prevent the use of the outbuilding as habitable accommodation or as a single dwelling and the following conditions:

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

            Site location plan

            CD-01A

3.         The external walls and roof of the building shall be finished in materials to match the colour and appearance of the existing house, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Informatives

IN907 Consideration of the proposal in a positive and proactive manner.

IN910 Building Regulations.

IN912 Hours of construction.

B)         That, in the event a s.106 unilateral undertaking is not completed by 14th December 2018, the application shall be refused for the following reason:

1.         The proposed building, by reason of its scale and design, would not in itself be incidental to the use of the main dwelling house. The building as proposed, served by domestic utilities, would be capable of use as habitable accommodation or as a self-contained dwelling. Such a use in this location would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to policies UD1 and SS1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31 and paragraph 8.16 of the Residential Design Guide.