Agenda item
22 Wembley Park Drive, Wembley, HA9 8HA (Ref. 10/0054)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 30 June 2010 7.00 pm (Item 18.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 18.
Decision:
Deferred for a site visit to enable members to assess the planning impact of the development.
Minutes:
Retrospective application for a single storey outbuilding and proposed reduction in height to oubuilding in rear garden of dwellinghouse. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
|
The Area Planning Manager, Neil McClellan provided a summary of the main issues as follows:
Although the applicant obtained a certificate of lawfulness in 2008 for the erection of a large outbuilding for use as a gymnasium and for storage, the building was actually built as a self contained dwelling. He drew members’ attention to the amount of work that was carried out in order to prepare the outbuilding as dwelling unit together with the fact that the applicant was already letting the main house out as an unauthorised and unlicensed HMO (house in multiple occupation), to support officers’ views on the application. It was noted that the enforcement action served on the property had resulted in the cessation of the use of the outbuilding as a dwelling unit and the use of the main dwelling as an HMO. He continued that the applicant’s application for planning permission to retain the outbuilding for use as a gymnasium, had in the past been rejected by members rejected on the grounds that the outbuilding was too large. The Planning Manager reiterated the recommendation for refusal because even at a reduced height the outbuilding with a floor area of nearly 60 square metres was still considered excessive to be a domestic residential garden development.
Mr Dignesh Patel, the applicant stated that he had reduced the height of the building as requested by members at the last meeting and that he would not use the outbuilding as a separate dwelling unit. He added that under permitted development he was entitled to build up to 50% of his rear garden and confirmed that he had submitted evidence of similar large outbuildings in the area to officers. Mr Patel confirmed that he was away from the country (in India) when one of the tenants made the changes to the use of the outbuilding.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Butt ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Butt stated that the applicant had reduced the height and internal walls of the building and was willing to comply with officers’ requirements including the terms of the enforcement notice. He continued that in addition to the applicant’s undertaking, he (the applicant) had provided evidence that he was out of the country when the unauthorised works and use were carried out by a tenant.
In response to a member’s request to comment on its size and height, the Head of Area Planning stated that the outbuilding was required to be incidental to the use of the main house and, where planning control existed, to have a reasonably sized footprint in relation to the garden and adjoining properties. Planning permission would not be supported on the basis of some technical maximum that may be buildable under ‘permitted development’
Following a brief discussion, members voted on the amendment by Councillor Kataria for a site visit to enable Members to assess the outbuilding and its impact which was put to the vote and declared carried.
DECISION: Deferred for a site visit to enable members to assess the outbuilding and its impact. |
Supporting documents:
- 18, 22 Wembley Park Drive, Wembley HA9 8HA, item 18. PDF 231 KB
- 18 - Supplementary Info - 22 Wembley Park Drive, Wembley, item 18. PDF 41 KB