Retrospective gym outbuilding at 21 Harwich Road, Little Clacton, Clacton-on-Sea

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to retain a 3.2-metre-high outbuilding in the rear garden for use as a domestic gym.

“Development: Householder Planning Application - New gym to rear of property. (Retrospective)”

“This application is before the Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a 3.2m high outbuilding within the rear garden and adjacent to the north-western boundary which adjoins Plough Corner Playing Field. Planning permission is required as the outbuilding exceeds 2.5m in height, and falls within 2m of the boundary.”

Officer report

The site

The detached bungalow lies inside Little Clacton’s settlement boundary, with the outbuilding beside the boundary adjoining Plough Corner Playing Fields.

“The site resides inside the Settlement Development Boundary for Little Clacton. The area is not within a Conservation Area nor would likely affect the setting of a Listed Building.”

“This application seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a 3.2m high outbuilding to the rear of the property and adjacent the north-western boundary which adjoins Plough Corner Playing Fields. The outbuilding will be used as a gym ancillary to the host dwelling.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the screening, separation, dark finish and fallback position outweighed the building’s size and materials, with no significant neighbouring harm.

“Overall, whilst it is acknowledged there is a degree of impact posed by the outbuilding by way of its size and materials, factors that counter an increase harm to visual amenity include the adequate screening level on site, the separation distance from the public highway, the use of a dark finish which matches those on neighbouring outbuildings which are of a similar size or taller and the fallback position.”

“The application site adjoins 23 Harwich Road to the north-east and 19 Harwich Road to the south- west. The proposal, which has an expansive size, will be visible to both neighbouring dwellings. However, it is situated towards the north-western most portion of the site, some 48m from the closest neighbouring dwelling and is in line within the existing outbuilding at 23 Harwich Road.”

Officer report

Objections raised

The parish council and six letters objected over the building’s appearance, size, noise, drainage, privacy, parking, construction and unauthorised status.

“Little Clacton Parish Council have objected to this application on the following grounds:”

“Officers Response: This would only apply to the development that forms this application, but such construction details would be the specific matter for the Building Control team to address under the Building Act 1984 and Regs 2010 as amended. Planning control could not duplicate this other Local Authority function.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Council’s Senior Planning Officer presented the application, while the parish council chairman and ward member spoke against it.

Members’ questions

Members questioned other development, enforcement, height limits, neighbouring impacts, precedent, retrospective applications, fencing and biodiversity.

“Officer response thereto:- Concerned that the Committee was not permitted to go into the site and inspect the proposed development. Google Earth shows that the back garden is full of other built development. Are there any other applications in the system to regulate these matters and could the Committee consider those together? Yes, a further retrospective application (reference 25/01061/FULHH) has been submitted to remedy this issue.”

“What would happen if the neighbours were to put in similar applications? This is hypothetical, but any application submitted is considered on its own individual merits. If a proactive application had been submitted would Officers have refused it? It is perfectly permissible to put in retrospective applications but obviously this is not advised by Officers as the applicant incurs substantial risks.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Smith moved approval and Councillor Fowler seconded it; the resolution passed on the Chairman’s casting vote.

“It was moved by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Fowler and:-”

“RESOLVED on the Chairman’s casting vote that:-”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to the stated conditions, with authority to make necessary wording changes and send any necessary informatives.

“1) the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.1), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and…”

“2) the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.”

Minutes