The application sought planning permission for the erection of a summer house / home office.  The application was scheduled for determination by the Planning Committee because it had been called in by councillors to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of overshadowing the garden and the dwelling to the south.

The Vice-Chair sought confirmation that the height of the proposed building was fairly standard.  The Committee was advised that, were the summerhouse further from the fence, residents could build up to 4m high within Permitted Development.

Councillor Hamilton asked officers to clarify the function of a ‘sunpipe’.  There would be a dome on top of the roof to provide natural light.

A Ward Councillor, Joycelyn Redsell, was invited to the Committee to present her statement of objection.

The applicant, Mr Preou, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

Councillor Ojetola questioned the issue regarding the height and the proximity to the fence.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposed building was closer to the property at the rear than the existing building; however given the direction both properties faced the shadow would fall within the applicant’s garden.

Councillor Rice referred to page 67 whereby the proposal complied with the Council’s policy.  He sought verification that the outhouse could have been built without the demolition of the existing garage.  Given the policy regarding percentage of footprint, it would be acceptable for the applicant to have both structures simultaneously.

Councillor Hamilton noted that, whilst the work must commence within 3 years, there was no limit for when the works should be completed.  He questioned whether, given the restrictions regarding commercial use, the building could be used as a granny annex in future.  Condition 4 limited usage of the building to ancillary purposes of the existing property as a single dwelling; the proposed building could be used for guests with on occasion but could not be used for independent living.  The time limit was a standard condition and it was not considered reasonable to place a limit upon completion date.

Councillor Jones asked whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of height.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that it was a standard height and could have been taller within Permitted Development.  Councillor Jones continued to question whether there were any regulations regarding the distance from the property boundary.  The Council held no specific regulations however if the building were shorter it could reasonably be built closer to the fence and cover a larger footprint.

Councillor Ojetola questioned the “home office” use.  It was confirmed that use like a study would be deemed acceptable however if it were used to meet clients that would be contrary to the conditions in place.

The Campaign to Protect Rural Essex Representative noted the plans included a business address, which matched that of the property.  Councillor Ojetola questioned what enforcement was possible if the conditions were broken.  It was clarified that, within Condition 4, working from home with a computer and phone line would be appropriate however not commercial use, such as a large number of deliveries or meeting clients.

The Chair recognised the frustration of the neighbours however the application complied with all policies and therefore he could not see grounds for refusal.

 It was proposed by the Vice-Chair and seconded by the Chair that the application be approved, subject to conditions, as per the Officer’s recommendation:

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Gerard Rice and Graham Snell.

Against:           (0)

Abstained:       (0)

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions.