AN application to build an indoor swimming pool, patio and decking area within the garden of a mobile home in Chillaton was last week rejected by West Devon planners. The committee heard the application was ?very unusual? in that it dealt with a permanent structure to be used ancillary to a temporary one. Planning services manager Jane Hart told members the mobile home was ?fairly new? and was on a site not allocated for development, being situated in a former quarry outside the development boundary of Chillaton. However, a certificate of lawful use had been issued to the mobile home owner in 2004, on grounds that a mobile home had previously been on the site for ten years. Mrs Hart said although the structure appeared permanent, it was built in such a way that it could be moved in one piece. The agent for the applicant told the committee the land was not strictly in open countryside, nor was it agricultural. He said it should be regarded as previously developed and said the development would have no impact on the community or on people living in the area. The nearest neighbour lived more than 100 metres away. But Chillaton resident Glyn Howells said the mobile home was allowed on the site ?purely by default? and allowing it to stay there flew in the face of all planning policies. He claimed the situation was a ?scurrilous strategy of development by stealth? and said there was no point having a local plan or policies if they could be so easily ignored. Cllr Mandy Govier said the situation ?beggared belief?. She said: ?I thought the definition of a mobile home was that it?s supposed to be moveable ? it looks a pretty permanent structure to me.? Cllr Govier queried the extent of the area of decking and patio around the mobile home. She said the committee needed to be tough about the way it treated the application. The committee overturned officers? recommendation to grant planning consent for the patio and decking and rejected the entire application, on grounds it represented an undesirable intensification of development in the country, contrary to planning policy. In addition, information submitted regarding a flood risk assessment was inadequate.
