Agenda item

The application was for a detached two storey dwelling with associated landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling and annexe building. (Additional information recv'd 19/5/17) (Additional information recv'd 1/6/17).

The application would normally have been determined under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for Officers, however, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Conrad Sturt.   

A site visit took place at the site.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘Three additional letters of support have been received, commenting that the proposal would be in keeping with the surroundings, would enhance the site and would be more compact than the existing dwelling. 

An additional letter with photos and indicative streetscene plan was sent from the applicant to the case officer and committee members.

An additional email has been sent from the applicant to the case officer advising that should the committee decided to grant planning permission, the applicant would accept a planning condition that would withdraw any unimplemented permitted development rights i.e not applicable to the part-implemented lawful garage or leisure buildings and rear and side dwelling extensions.

The officer response is as follows:

The quoted figures for the lawful part-implemented extensions 13/0520 and 0555 have been double checked and there is indeed an error in the given figure in Section 7.2.4 of the Committee Report, which has been corrected as highlighted overleaf:

Floorspace

Footprint

Although the footprint of the current proposed dwelling would only be 7 sq m greater than the permitted development fallback afforded by the part-implemented 13/0520 + 0555 extensions to the existing dwelling, as outlined in Para 7.2.5 the proposed dwelling would have an approx. 47% greater floorspace than the existing dwelling and part-implemented extensions and would also involve an approx. 0.5m maximum height increase. The proposed dwelling by reason of its additional bulk arising from the floorspace, volume and height increase would remain significantly larger than the existing dwelling and these part-implemented extensions. Furthermore, the proposal would nullify the consolidated built form benefits which contributed to very special circumstances to allow approval of the 16/1046 replacement dwelling.

This overall additional bulk and spread of development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt that has a significantly greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings. The restricted view from Westwood Road does not remove this unacceptable harm upon Green Belt openness as there will still be a significant additional presence of buildings.

As outlined in Section 7.8 any design or other merits of the proposal would not outweigh the inappropriateness and harm of the development in the Green Belt. The removal of permitted development rights for the proposed dwelling, if approved, is not considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt arising from its increased bulk. Additionally, it is noted that the 16/1046 replacement dwelling was approved on the basis that permitted development rights would be removed and therefore, future control of further development in the Green Belt would still be achieved should this be implemented.

The Ecology Appraisal was exhibited on the Council’s website upon receipt under the ‘General Correspondence’ tab.’

It was clarified that the outbuildings which included the pool and gym etc, would remain on the site. The application was for a larger replacement dwelling with a 47% floorspace increase from the extant building planning permission.

Some Members felt that the proposal was in keeping with the street scene, was a large plot, not harmful to visual amenities and residents had not objected.  However, officers advised the committee that these reasons did not constitute very special circumstances to outweigh the identified inappropriateness and harm to the Green Belt.

Resolved that application 17/0293 be refused for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that the Chairman declared that Members had received correspondence from the applicant.

Note 2

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Colin Dougan and seconded by Councillor Victoria Wheeler.

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Colin Dougan, Edward Hawkins, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler, Valerie White and John Winterton.

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Surinder Gandhum, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry and Colin Sturt.

The Chairman had the casting vote; the recommendation to refuse the application was carried.