The flat roofed building would span most of the width of the long spacious garden and extend 14.5m in length and be double the footprint of the original house. The structure satisfied all of the limitations of the class but the council had refused the application by reason of the size and scale of the proposed outbuilding.
The council was concerned that the outbuilding could be put to some other use but the inspector noted Class E makes specific reference to a swimming pool as a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling and if the outbuilding were to be used for other purposes amounting to a breach of planning control then the LDC would be of no benefit and the council had powers to deal with it.
The issue for the inspector was whether the size of the outbuilding was reasonably required to meet the specified incidental purpose. Acknowledging a swimming pool, sauna/steam, shower and wc of similar size could be accommodated within a smaller building, the inspector noted the proposal allowed for space to sit around the pool and was not an unreasonably large area. Nothing was found to indicate that the space would be used for other purposes. Given the size of the planning unit and the length of the garden, the inspector decided the size and scale of the building would not be disproportionate nor would it be excessive in size and scale for the stated purpose and issued an LDC.
Inspector: K Saward; Written representations