Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/23/010

Planning application - outdoor gymnasium including open sided exercise shelter, moveable exercise equipment and equipment storage container

Planning application - outdoor gymnasium including open sided exercise shelter, moveable exercise equipment and equipment storage container

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The Parish Council had raised objections to the proposal which was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for approval, subject to conditions as set out in Paragraph 104 of Report No DEV/WS/23/010 together with those in the supplementary ‘late papers’ and inclusive of the amendments as advised in the presentation to the meeting.

Since publication of the agenda and late papers further representations had been received objecting to the proposal. The content of which was outlined to the Committee alongside visual aids (photographs/maps) to demonstrate the points raised.

Members were also informed that an extension to the acoustic fence had been agreed by the applicant in order to further mitigate the impact on neighbouring properties.

Lastly, attention was drawn to the comments set out in the late papers from the Place Services Tree Officer and Natural England.

Speakers:    Lizzi Flaherty (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   (Lizzi was not in attendance to personally address the Committee and, instead, the Democratic Services Officer read out a pre-prepared statement on her behalf.)

                   Caroline Merrett (neighbouring objector) spoke against the application

                   Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger (Ward Member: The Fornhams and Great Barton) spoke against the application and read out a statement on behalf of 19 neighbouring objectors

                   Molly Bedford (Health Club Assistant Manager – Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Prior to the Chair opening the debate, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) addressed the meeting and reminded Members that the fact the application was retrospective and had been subject to enforcement investigations was not a Material Planning Consideration and the scheme seeking determination was to be judged on its planning merits and against the policies of the development plan and any other material considerations.

In response to queries as to whether the existing structure was compliant with building regulations, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that this was also not a Material Planning Consideration. Moreover, the structure may not have required building regulations. Members were advised that Officers would raise this with the Council’s Building Control Team directly, however, the Committee needed to be mindful that building control services were also offered by various companies in the private sector. Lastly, it was highlighted that building regulations had a separate enforcement process to that of planning applications.

The Committee was informed that Officers would provide a written update to Members outside of the meeting in respect of the discussions held with building control and to provide more detail on the enforcement element connected with the site.

Councillor Andy Drummond proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to:

1.   The inappropriate location and the impact on residential amenity;

2.   The significant loss of and potential impact on trees; and

3.   Because he did not believe the application would have been granted if it had been submitted prior to construction.

This was duly seconded by Councillor David Roach.

Following a very short adjournment to allow Officers to confer with the Lawyer advising the meeting, the Service Manager (Planning – Development) explained that she would not recommend inclusion of reason 3 for refusal, and again reminded Members that the fact the application was retrospective was not a Material Planning Consideration.

Furthermore, if reason 3 was removed the Decision Making Protocol would not need to be invoked and the motion for refusal would not be ‘minded to’ and not subject to the production of a Risk Assessment.

Accordingly, Councillors Drummond and Roach, as proposer and seconder for the motion agreed to remove reason 3 from the proposal.

Therefore, upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION due to:

1.    The provision of an outdoor gym facility as existing in this sensitive location, in an elevated position relative to the closest residential properties has had a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of those nearby residents.  Notwithstanding the proposed noise mitigation measures contained in the retrospective application, concern still remains that the residential amenity of nearby residents could be adversely impacted.  The proposal therefore fails to comply with the requirements set out within policy DM2 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document which seeks to ensure residential amenity is not adversely affected or with the provisions of the NPPF that relate to amenity.

2.    The construction of the gym facility has resulted in the loss of protected woodland on the site which is an important landscape feature of this area. The installation/resurfacing of hard surfaces and structures in close proximity to trees within the woodland is likely to impact the future health of those remaining trees. The retention of the gym use and associated structures is not considered to be compatible with the surrounding remaining protected woodland and is likely to lead to future pressure to have further trees removed. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policies DM2 and DM13 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document which seeks to ensure proposals protect and enhance the character of the landscape or with the provisions of the NPPF that relate to conserving and enhancing the natural environment”