Havant Borough Council Planning Committee Meeting

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Diamond.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 21 November 2024 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no declarations of interests relating to matters on the agenda.

There were no matters to be considered for site viewing and deferment.

Proposal: Single storey residential annex to rear garden (part retrospective) and shed.

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant permission.

The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the

meeting, which included:

1.               Written statements submitted by Councillor Diamond, Mr Coyle, Ms Pook, and Mr and Mrs Pook.

2.               An addendum update which included information previously missing from the report, an appendix replaced and an updated condition.

The Committee was addressed by:

1.                  Councillor Diamond, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation submitted.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, Councillor Diamond confirmed that she was invited by the applicant’s developer to visit the site.

2.                  Mr Neville, who reiterated the issues set out in the written deputation set out by the applicant.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, Mr Neville confirmed that:

a.     the left-hand side wall of the shed was a cavity wall, while the rest of the walls was single skinned.

b.     Catnic lintels were concealed on the exterior of the build by fascia boards.

c.     The building plans had shown a kitchen area, and it was meant to have a sink in it, but it had not been installed.

d.     There would not be any provision available in the build to run cooking facilities.

The officers commented on the issues raised by public speakers and in the written submissions as follows:

·                     If a building took over 50% of the garden (excluding the dwelling), it would then fall under planning control.

·                     The applicant’s agent confirmed that the build would not be over the boundary.

·                     Any damages, if occurred to the neighbouring property, would be a private matter.

·                     Building control were satisfied with the drainage arrangements of the application.

·                     The site was visited by the Council’s officers on a number of occasions.

·                     The application build would have an annex linked to main dwelling if planning permission were to be granted.

·                     The size of building would be consistent with permitted development rights.

In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers pointed out that:

a.                  The build was initially seen as being incidental.

b.                  It was only known at a later stage that the usage of the build was to be an ancillary accommodation,

c.                   There were no pre-application enquiries made regarding the application.

d.                  The application build could be classed as a granny annex, if linked to the main dwelling.

e.                  If condition 2 of the report were to be breached, action could be taken by Council.

f.                    The building works of the proposal were considered entirely consistent with permitted development right.

g.                  A previous application in Cowplain referenced was not of similar nature, or situation to this application.

h.                  The building has been signed off by Building Control and they were satisfied with the drainage arrangements of the proposal.

i.                     Car parking standards would only require 2 parking spaces for the proposed build and its host dwelling.

j.                     A bedroom in an annex would not be considered unusual.

k.                   The builder has confirmed that there would not be any cooking facilities in the build.

l.                     Members should consider carefully their reasons for imposing any additional condition limiting the number of bedrooms in the annexe; they would have to relate to the impact from the annexe and the host dwelling and not to the risk of a potential change of use to a separate dwellinghouse..

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.

The Committee considered the purpose and the use of the annex, and that there was not a good reason to refuse the application.

RESOLVED that application APP/24/00673 be granted permission subject to the following conditions: