On June 24th 2014 the Planning and Rights of Way Committee will meet at 10am to consider a number of applications including Application No. 12/1070/PA. The applicant is Megan Williams and retrospective planning permission is being sought for a hobbit-like roundhouse, built on private land a couple of years ago. Megan, baby Eli and father Charlie have lived there since July 2012.
(See https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charlie-and-Megs-Roundhouse/143456382471743)
The Director of Development has recommended REFUSAL for this and the 19 page report is therefore as negative a document as you could ever wish to read.
All the positive aspects of this dwelling are downplayed, muted: for example Paragraph 6.59 states that the use of electricity is approx 50% of the average annual household electricity use in the UK and yet the application is still criticised because a reduction in household energy use does "not appear to be a target" (Para 6.61)
All the possible drawbacks are magnified and the Director of Development has descended into ludicrous criticism here eg one source of income in the future is likely to come from meringue production, but the Director solemnly writes that a steady supply of eggs are needed for this and the couple have not identified the total number of chickens required or stated what the surplus yolks will be used for (!).
By contrast the report on Application No. 13/0744/PA concerning a Traveller's application for "Use of Land for one static caravan, one touring caravan with a utility dayroom/stable block, muck heap and access road has been marked for APPROVAL despite the fact that this development too is partly in retrospect. Now Charlie and Megan have been pilloried for not seeking planning permission first for their roundhouse, but no objections are raised here by the council: in Para 6.21 they write:
"With regard to concern about development commencing without permission (my italics), this is not a reason for withholding permission if the development is considered acceptable." (!)
There is similar disparity over the issue of a septic tank where again Charlie and Megan have been criticized, whereas all possible difficulties for the caravan site application have been waved through. The council stated that Charlie and Megan should have submitted percolation tests: "Pre-construction baseline data is important" (Para 6.72) but for the Traveller's site there is no concern:
Para 6.19 Drainage: the applicants agent has commissioned percolation tests but to date the results have not been received. In any event given the extent of the land adjacent to the application site which the applicant owns, it is considered that it would be practical for drainage to be accomodated within this land, should it not be possible to achieve the necessary drainage within the application site itself. In the unlikely event that this was not possible a sealed cesspit would provide an acceptable alternative method of disposal.
Finally family considerations: for Charlie's family it is curtains: the potential impact of bulldozing their home and therefore evicting them is considered to be "justified in pursuit of the rural restraint strategy of the Authority in the interest of the wider public interest."
In the caravan site application the Council go into some detail about the family's need for a pitch: "pitches may be provided to meet an identified need."
The immense disparity between the tone of the two reports submitted by the Director shows that the Planning and Right of Way Committee are not getting a truly balanced picture of either application!
95,000 people have signed the petition to save the roundhouse and many of the comments dispute the council's assertion that the roundhouse is a visual intrusion. Indeed even the Council have to admit in this report (despite earlier declarations) that the visual impact of the home is low and yet still they want to claim that the benefits of the development "do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
