Agenda item

There was no Officer update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application.

District Councillor Jon Tankard spoke on the process rather than the application.  The Councillor said the Council needed to be taking the lead in creating processes and establishing principles for dealing with veterans.

Chorleywood Parish Councillor Jon Bishop raised the following points:  Whilst Chorleywood Parish Council were sympathetic to the applicant, granting the application would have a negative impact on the wider community and would damage Chorleywood Common.  The area for the parking space was registered as common land and granting planning permission would result in the permanent loss of the area to the Common.  Provision of a License or Easement would enable the applicant to park closer to the property.   The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

The Planning Officer advised that the Committee should look at the planning merits of the application.  If planning permission were granted it would not negate the requirement for the applicant to overcome and satisfy any other legislation or consents that would be required.  Licenses and Easements mentioned by the Parish Council would be completely separate as they would be a consideration outside of planning.  The Committee should be looking at the planning harm as a result of the parking and also what the Officer recommendation was looking at which was the harm from the single storey front and side extension.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if temporary personal permission could be granted for the applicant to use the area for parking and have a requirement that on the sale of the property it would lapse and have to be converted back to its current state. Was it correct that personal circumstances of an Applicant were not material to planning considerations?

The Planning Officer said it would not meet the tests for planning conditions and would not be reasonable.  If they were to condition this there would need to be a planning reason why it should be a temporary consent. The 2^nd question was in respect of whether or not personal circumstance are a material consideration.  Personal circumstances could be a material consideration and it was felt in this case the weight given to that would not outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area.  Members could give weight to the personal circumstances but they would need to believe that the extension requirements for the occupiers use were exceptional to outweigh National and Local Planning Policy.  Officers did not feel that was the case in this instance. 

Councillor David Raw asked if there were any alternative options available from the Parish Council.  The Planning Officer said they could only consider the application before them tonight.

Councillor Sara Bedford asked if planning permission was granted did the applicant still need permission to use the space as village green under the Countryside Rights of Way Act or any other legislation or if they were given that permission did they still need planning permission to use the land because they were carrying out engineering works on that land.  Were both required in order for this development to proceed or was only one required in order for it to proceed and if so which one?

The Planning Officer confirmed that both would be required.  They would need to satisfy themselves with both consents.  For example planning permission could be granted for an extension but would still require building regulations and there may be issues from the building control perspective which could mean the extension could not be built.  With regard the parking aspect, granting planning permission would not necessarily give them the right to park there because they would have to comply with other legislation which was for the applicant to satisfy. 

Councillor Sara Bedford asked if planning permission were to be given by this Authority that would be a permanent permission and therefore would be up to any agreement made requiring it as Commons Land to provide any temporary or personal permission if that was what the Authorities or DEFRA believed was the thing to do.  The Council would give a permanent permission and it would be up to other Authorities to say no it had to be a temporary permission personal only to the Applicant if that was the case?  The Planning Officer confirmed this was correct.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst said there was harm to the Conservation Area and the circumstances of the applicant did not outweigh that in terms of any public benefit and therefore supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor Alex Hayward was sure it was not the case that the applicant had been treated unfairly by the Council.  There would be ongoing harm to the Common.  They supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst moved, seconded by Councillor Alex Hayward, the recommendation set out in the report for refusal.

On being put to the Committee the motion for refusal was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 5 For, 3 Against and 3 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Councillor Jon Tankard left the meeting.