Agenda item

Proposed garage extension and raising of the height of the roof to provide a hobby room above.

15 Mentmore Gardens  Boston  PE21 7TH

Mr C Dingwall

The Development Control Manager presented the report and confirmed that the application was a re-submission following an initial refusal under delegated powers.   Committee were advised that it was the opinion of the officer that the reasons for refusal had been addressed sufficiently to a reasonable extent for committee to reconsider the application.

Members were also referred to the additional information submitted by an objector following issue of the agenda, which had been distributed to all members ahead of the meeting.

Committee received representation in objection to the application which included:

The question was asked initially be the County Councillor for the ward as to when did a hobby become a business in a residential area?  The application was a gross over development of a small residential area with the capacity for a significant number of cars.  He noted the proposed extension was too large for the residential area and would be totally out of character.

Further concerns noted by an objector included confirmation that the applicant had stated in the first application that they were a member of the Kit-Car Company which built cars across the Country.  The company had an active web site which stated it had no overheads.

There was a possibility of up to 13 vehicles being parked on the site at any one time with room for 5 on the driveway along with 8 at the back plus room for a long wheeled unit.  The business would use a significant amount of pressurised gases / paint and other hazardous chemicals. 

Welding took place and could prove dangerous due to the possibility of both explosions and odour problems. Odour issues had already been experienced due to the fumes from paint spraying and neighbours had already experienced a lack of use of their gardens due to the strength of the fumes: there had been occasion’s when it had not been possible for young children to play in the garden.

Further issues included a loss of amenity due to a loss of light from the over shadowing; a loss of privacy with over looking from the gable end window and increased noise nuisance from the potential number of vehicle movements and noise generated from production and activity within the proposed new extension.

Committee were finally invited to visit the site to view the closeness of the business to the objectors’ home and see the detrimental effect it would have on the lives of the neighbours.

Officer’s provided a professional point of information confirming that the use of the proposed extension, as long as it was incidental to the enjoyment of the house, could not be a planning related matter:  any future change of use from the existing domestic use to a commercial use would require planning permission under a separate application.  Concerns relating to the use of the site in respect of environmental issues would be subject to any enforcement by the Environmental Health Department. 

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Paul Skinner that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the additional condition that no commercial activity take place at the application site and that committee remove delegated powers such that any future application for a change of use of the application site be returned to the committee.

VOTE:      In Favour    3.        Against   9.        Abstention 0.

RESOLVED:     The motion fell.

It was moved by Councillor Michael Cooper and seconded by Councillor David Brown that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation by reason of the increase in the extent of the footprint and its location in close proximity to neighbouring properties and would cause substantial harm to the amenities of those neighbours contrary to save Local Plan Policy G1.

VOTE:      In Favour    10.        Against   2.        Abstention 0.

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reason:

1.     The proposed extension by reason of the increase in the extent of the footprint and its location in close proximity to neighbouring properties would cause substantial harm to the amenities of those neighbours contrary to saved Local Plan Policy G1.