Agenda item

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Councillor Jan French.

Councillor Mrs French explained that the application is for retrospective planning permission as the applicants had been unaware that planning permission was required when they erected the shed. She confirmed March Town Council and local residents are in favour of the application, with a petition attracting over 100 signatures of support also. She said during her 19 years as a Councillor, she cannot recall any other occasion where a planning application for a shed has gained so much public support.

Councillor Mrs French explained that that Highways comments in the report are incorrect as the access has not been moved. She explained that the applicant has owned the property for 13 years and the dropped kerb was in situ when they purchased the property. The property was originally owned by Fenland District Council and the dropped kerb had been installed during this period of ownership. The report states that the application undermines Local Plan Policy 16 (LP16) however Councillor Mrs French said the shed does make a positive contribution to the area as the owners have greatly improved the property. She asked members to approve the application as refusing it would send the wrong message out to local residents trying to improve their properties.

Members asked Councillor Mrs French the following questions;

1.    Councillor Connor asked if all of the letters received in support of the application were from local residents. Councillor Mrs French confirmed all letters of support were received by residents who live within the vicinity of the property.

2.    Councillor Connor asked if the petition had been signed by local residents only. Councillor Mrs French confirmed all signatories were local residents and added that the Applicant had visited neighbouring properties to seek support for the application.

3.    Councillor Connor thanked Councillor Mrs French for confirming the level of public support.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Mrs French for her presentation.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, by Mark Mueller (the Applicant).

Mark Mueller thanked members for giving him to opportunity to speak today and made it clear that it was never his intention to deceive the Council by not obtaining planning permission. He confirmed that he had purchased the property from Roddons Housing Association and the restrictive covenants attached to the property included; restrictions that prevented the land being used for anything other than garden land, restrictions on signage being displayed at the property and restrictions on erecting any other building or structure on-site except a single garden shed. Based on this, he said he was unaware that he would need to do seek any further approval for the shed. He explained that the shed had been built by a professional timber company for a cost of £2,000. He reiterated that he had never meant to deceive the Council and contravene the rules and asked members to take a common sense approach when considering this application.

Members asked Mark Mueller the following questions;

1.    Councillor Mrs Laws said on the site visit, she had noticed a sign in the window advertising the applicant’s business which contravenes the restrictive covenants he mentioned. Mark Mueller confirmed that he had discussed this with the Enforcement officer and he had received confirmation that no further action would be taken on this.

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked for confirmation that the applicant runs their business from the property. Mark Mueller confirmed that they did.

3.    Councillor Mrs Laws asked what the purpose of the shed is. Mark Mueller confirmed it is solely for domestic storage, as per the requirements of the covenant.

4.    Councillor Mrs Davis asked if Mark Mueller had any intentions to run his business from the shed. Mark Mueller confirmed that he and his wife had no intentions of running the business from the shed as this would be in breach of the covenant.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Mrs Bligh said she disagrees with enforcing the removal of the shed as it is very well made and the petition highlights the support the Applicants have received. She highlighted that this application is an example of where members of the public must be vigilant when making changes to their properties without seeking advice from the Council.

2.    Councillor Mrs Laws said whilst she appreciates policy, she was impressed with the aesthetics of the building and genuinely believes the applicant did not intend to deceive.  She highlighted that both local residents and March Town Council support the application. She said due to the nature of the application, there are times where the Committee must consider the ‘spirit of planning’ and move away from policy and on this occasion, she supports the application.

3.    Councillor Mrs Bligh agreed and said common sense must prevail and confirmed that she too supports the application.

4.    Councillor Mrs Hay disagreed and said although the shed is well-made and built in good faith, this is not a good enough reason to go against planning policy. She highlighted that the shed is large and not located on garden land as per the covenant mentioned and approving the application would set a precedent for other similar scenarios in the area. She agreed with officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

5.    Councillor Connor agreed that common sense should prevail as the applicant has not intended to deceive the Council and has a lot of local support.  He asked if members approved the application whether a condition could be added stating that the shed must not be used for business purposes.

6.    Councillor Sutton said unfortunately common sense does not apply to planning policies. He reminded members that the number of signatures on the petition should not sway members to undermine planning policies. Whilst he has no doubt that the Applicants are genuine and they did not intend to do anything wrong, that does not make the shed right. He highlighted that the shed is built in front of the building line of the road and does have a visual impact on the street scene. He agreed with officer’s recommendation to refuse the application based on the visual impact and the precedence approving the application would set.

7.    Councillor Benney said prior to visiting the site, he believed there would be an impact on the street scene however changed his opinion as the shed does not obstruct the adjacent junction. He said the property is well maintained and in good order and as elected representatives, members should ‘stick up for the little man’ and approve planning permission.

8.    Councillor Mrs Hay reiterated that she is concerned approving the application would set a precedent for other similar applications.

9.    Nick Harding said the decision is based on the subjective matter of whether the appearance of the shed is acceptable to the street scene or not. Officers have made their recommendation and believe that it does not have a positive contribution on the street scene however members may disagree about whether it contravenes policy or not. In relation to Councillor Connor’s comments, he explained that it would not be possible to add a condition in relation to not using the  shed  for business use (to the  same  extent as  is  being operated  elsewhere  at the property) as the  current  business  operation does  not require  planning permission.

10. Councillor Connor said each planning application is judged on its own merits so there should be no concern in relation to setting a precedent.

11. Councillor Mrs Davis agreed that it is a subjective issue as if she was a local resident; she would have no concerns with the shed either. The property is well looked after and the application should be judged on its own merits. She believes members should approve the application.

12. Councillor Mrs Laws agreed and said based on the subjective nature of the application, planning permission should be approved.

13. Councillor Mrs Newell disagreed and said whilst the shed is of good quality that does not change the fact it is outside of planning policy. She highlighted that there is no point in having policies if planning permission is granted to applications that do not comply with them.

14. Councillor Benney said members should not be concerned about going against policy if they believe it is the correct thing to do.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Connor and decided that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation.