To consider an application for retrospective consent for the erection of a gazebo building at Cark Manor, Cark-In-Cartmel.
The Senior Specialist - Development Management presented an outline of the retrospective planning application for a ‘bandstand’ style gazebo. The site location plan was illustrated with photographs. A visual description of the gazebo was provided. A range of photographs were displayed with a diagram of the plan showing the position of the gazeebo. Images of the Cark Manor building juxtaposed against the terrace and stairs which have been approved previously were shown. These developments were described as being in a different style and not in keeping with the style or period of the manor, but were nevertheless previously approved. Photographs from the road were shown.
The Officer drew Members’ attention to a late representation from a local resident detailing that further works had taken place. An additional wall was reported to have been built around the gazebo.
The Officer requested Members to consider the recent addition of the gazebo in context of original building.
The Officer detailed the neighbours’ concerns. The gazebo is a covered outdoor seating area in close proximity to residents’ properties. The distance measurements were relayed to Members. This property is to be a holiday let. It was therefore detailed that a condition should be attached to any approval to restrict any external lighting and hours of use, in order to minimise any disruption to neighbouring occupiers. It was noted that the property had a caretaker living on site, so this would not be unreasonable or unenforceable.
The Chairman confirmed the fact that the application was a retrospective application and that this is not a material planning condition.
Andy Robinson – Spoke in objection to the application
Rachael Leather – Applicant’s Agent – Spoke in support of the application.
The Planning Officer responded to questions raised by Members.
Members raised concerns about retrospective planning applications. The Officer confirmed that the planning system is pro-development and it is not an offense to carry out works without planning permission. However Enforcement action could make the Applicant take it down again. The development is at the Applicant’s own risk.
Members were reminded to consider the application as it appeared before them; the application was in respect to a holiday let.
The Officer weighed up that, on balance, independently, this is an acceptable proposal however Members were made aware of the objections in the report which were discussed.
The Chairman confirmed that Members should consider this proposal as it appears before them and not base this decision on retrospective historical builds and applications or any concerns that may have been raised about future potential usage of the site.
Members noted in particular the objection of the Councils’ Conservation Officer and referenced sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the report, at page 31 within the agenda pack.
A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and a vote was taken on the application and it was:
RESOLVED: - That the application seeking retrospective consent for the erection of the gazebo building be refused on the following grounds:
Members agreed with the Conservation Officer and referenced sections 1.6 and 1.7 of page 31 in the agenda pack. They agreed that:
(1) The gazebo causes harm to the setting of the listed building, arising in an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of this designated heritage asset, and is out of character with the context of the surrounding landscape.
(2) With regards to the setting and curtilage, the works do not preserve or enhance the significance of the heritage asset and therefore should not be approved.
Reason for Refusal:
The gazebo causes less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building arising in an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the designated heritage asset. The public benefit from the proposal would be limited and therefore the harm to the designated heritage asset would not be outweighed by the public benefits derived from the proposal. The proposal is considered to be out of character with the context of the surrounding landscape and fails to preserve or enhance the significance of the heritage asset. As such the proposal is contrary to the tests of Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies CS1.1 and CS8.6 South Lakeland Core Strategy, Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.