Agenda item

202111305 - 53 Nickleby Road Gravesend Kent DA12 4UQ


Resolved that application 20211305 be delegated Authority to Service Manager (Planning Services) in conjunction with the Chair of the Planning Committee subject to the rewording of Condition 2.


The Committee considered 20211305 in relation to 53 Nickleby Road Gravesend Kent DA12 4UQ. Theapplication wasfor the retrospective application for erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden to be used as home gym, games and family room.


The application site is comprised of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on the northern

side of 53 Nickleby Road, a residential street of similar architectural character.


The Team Leader (Development Management) introduced application 20211305 to the Committee and highlighted key points from the report.


  • The application for 53 Nickleby Road is located within an urban area of Gravesend and is a residential area characterised by dwellings on generous plots with many having outbuildings towards the rear of their gardens.
  • On top of the building there are solar panels which the applicant had not included as part of the application. The solar panel will be dealt with outside this committee and be referred to the Planning Enforcement Team to address.
  • As outlined in 5.2 to 5.6 of the report the design of the development is deemed acceptable and there is no conflict with local or national planning policy.
  • The flat roofed outbuilding has a height of 2.8m which is 0.8m higher than a boundary fence which could be constructed without the benefit of planning permission and 0.3m higher than an outbuilding which could be constructed without planning permission.
  • As set in paragraph 5.11 to 5.14 of the report there would be no adverse impact to the amenity of surrounding properties.
  • The recommendation would be to grant permission subject to the following conditions:  approved plans and restricting the use of the outbuilding.


In response to Members questions on the clarification of the application, the Service Manager (Planning) explained that:


  • The height of the outbuilding fails to meet the height requirement of Schedule 2 Part 1 Class E of the General Permitted Development Order (2015); as it is 2.8m in height, and, therefore, requires planning permission.
  • Following a question about whether conditions could be added to stop this outbuilding being used for residential accommodation. The Team Leader (Development Management) explained that yes a condition could be added to keep the outbuilding for the purposes set out in the application.


The Committee heard from Cllr Leslie Hills, a Ward Councillor for Chalk Ward who was against the application:


The following points were raised during the discussion on this application:


  • Cllr Hills called in this application for consideration as he had observed the building from the neighbouring property. It had been a building site for several months and was a monstrosity. Cllr Hills observed the site before the roof had been installed and as no planning permission had been submitted for this particular site, Cllr Hills was originally unsure what the building was for intended for.
  • Cllr Hills considered this to be inappropriate and an over development within the neighbourhood and Cllr Hills felt it exceeded the height that was mentioned in the planning application.  
  • Cllr Hills had taken photographs of the site during construction and had submitted these to the Planning Team, but they were not accepted. The Team Leader (Development Management) explained that with retrospective applications, the Committee have to decide not what had been built on the site but what is in the application and plans in front of them and the application does comply with the planning policy.
  • The Chair asked the Team Leader (Development Management) to confirm the actual size of the building and it was confirmed to be: 4.9m deep by 9.78m wide and 2.8m high. The left boundary is 0.6m and the right boundary is 0.4m. If the building had been 2.5m high planning permission would not have been required but because the height is 30cm higher planning permission is required. 
  • The Team Leader (Development Management) explained that after looking at a photographs of the garden and site, the plan under item 1.2 does show that the guttering is not overhanging.


TheTeam Leader(Development Management) fieldedquestions fromMembers and    the following discussions were had:


  • Retrospective planning applications seem to be on the increase, is there a way that this could be stopped. The Chair thanked the Member and suggested the council look at these type of planning applications and what could be done to stop so many coming through Planning.
  • Members expressed a concern and suggested conditions be added to this application.
  • The Vice Chair summed up the application and the concerns of Cllr Hills. As the height of the outbuilding is only 2 inches over the permitted height there seems to be no reason why planning permission could not be permitted but conditions would need to be added to application.


The Chair thanked the Ward Councillor and the Officers for the detailed report.


Resolved that application 20211305 be delegated authority to Service Manager (Planning Services) in conjunction with the Chair of the Planning Committee subject to the rewording of Condition 2.


Approved with conditions:      Unanimous


Note:   (a) Ward Councillor Leslie Hills spoke with the leave of the Chair.


Supporting documents: