PLANNERS have rejected proposals to provide a swimming pool, home cinema and gym in an outbuilding at a Victorian property in Lymm.
The application involved a proposed class E outbuilding at the property on Mill Lane, Lymm and included a garage as part of the development.
While there were no objections from neighbours Lymm Parish Council saw it as an overdevelopment of the site and inappropriate development in the green belt. Considering the scale of the proposal, the Parish Council also questioned whether it should constitute a Full Planning application.
In a report outlining the reasons for the refusal Warrington Borough Council planners said the Government’s Technical Guidance in relation to Permitted Development rights for householders clarifies that Class E permitted development rights refers to “…buildings such as garden sheds, other storage buildings, garages, and garden decking, as long as they can be properly be described as having a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house. A purpose incidental to a house would not, however, cover normal residential uses, such as separate self-contained accommodation or the use of an outbuilding for primary living accommodation such as a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen.”
The plans indicated that the building would be split into rooms with different uses, including a garage, swimming pool, gym and cinema room. Also included were changing rooms and presumably bathroom facilities and W.C.s within the building but no indication that the building would otherwise be used for self-contained living accommodation. The proposed cinema room could be viewed as an ancillary residential use but, other than this, the proposed uses in isolation are considered to be incidental uses to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house.
Planners said the proposed building would be of a significant size, with a footprint of 266 square metres, in the region of double the footprint of the main dwelling. It would measure 30.8 metres long and 8.3 metres wide with the swimming pool comprising the largest section, measuring around 13 metres long.
The main dwelling house on the site is a Victorian two storey (with roof space accommodation), 4 bedroom semi-detached dwelling. It has been extended at the rear as indicated in the planning history. The extended property has a footprint of around 125 square metres. It is not considered to be a particularly large dwelling, although it is recognised that the house sits within a generous plot, with a rear garden extending back for around 50 metres.
The front of the outbuilding would be located 20cm behind the front of the main dwelling and would run alongside the southern side elevation with a separation gap of just 5cm. It would extend back into the rear garden for some 13 metres beyond the rear elevation of the extended dwelling house. Although class E does not stipulate that an outbuilding is required to be a minimum distance from the main dwelling, it is considered that the separation distance in this case would be so minimal that it can be reasonably questioned whether the proposal represents an extension to the dwelling, rather than a separate outbuilding.
However, notwithstanding this, it is considered that the scale of the proposed outbuilding compared with the main dwelling is so disproportionately large that the building cannot be deemed to be ‘incidental’ to the use of the main dwelling.
It was concluded that the proposed building would not represent an outbuilding reasonably required for a purpose which is incidental to the use of the dwellinghouse. The proposed development is therefore not permitted development under the terms of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended.
The application was rejected on two grounds:
1. Due to the excessive scale of the proposed outbuilding, compared to the size of the main dwellinghouse on the site, and the absence of any justification for a building of such a scale, it is not considered that the proposed development is reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Therefore, the proposed outbuilding does not meet the criteria of permitted development set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended.
2.”The proposed outbuilding, by reason of its height and roof form, would fail to comply with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1 Class E (e) (iii) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended.”
