Agenda item

                        The Planning Officer reported they had no update.

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

                        Parish Councillor Jon Bishop stated the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan was approved in May by the Council following the referendum with 89% of residents approving it, but it seemed it was not being taken seriously.  Within the plan was Policy 4.1 which three applications on the agenda tonight breached.  This application does not consider the policy at all.  The policy required that bungalows in certain areas, Quickley Lane being one, are retained.  In Chorleywood there are very few bungalows but we have a growing elderly and disabled population.  The Neighbourhood Plan brought in this policy to maintain bungalows.  The proposed design would provide a small bedroom downstairs but really it would be a multi-level dwelling with three bedrooms upstairs.  No bungalows had been approved for many years but 20 bungalows had been lost over the last 5 years and potentially another 3 tonight.  With regard to the streetscene this application would not be in keeping.  The photographs of comparable houses were not located in Quickley Lane so how were they comparable.  All the houses in this location were small bungalows with no extensions at the front.  If the application was approved it would be the only property with a large front aspect of two storeys. 

                        The Planning Officer reiterated that the site was not within a Conservation Area. The loss of a view was not a material planning consideration along with the impact in terms of structural damage or integrity to neighbouring properties.  Structural foundations would be checked as part of Building Regulations.  The Officer acknowledged that Policy 4.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan was not referred to in the report but there was no evidence to suggest that this application would significantly diminish the provision of bungalows within Chorleywood.  The property could be extended under permitted development including the dormer to the rear to provide accommodation within the roof space and would therefore alter the appearance of the dwelling.  There are level changes at the front which were not making the dwelling as readily accessible as another property/bungalow on a level playing field from the highway.  In response to other comments regarding Rendlesham Way and Furze View whilst they are not in Quickley Lane they are a stone’s throw away from the property and were visible from the rear garden.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya sought clarification from the Planning Officer on the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan.  Officers had confirmed that Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan Policy 4.1 and had not been mentioned and wondered if any weight had been put on that and if so was that a material consideration. 

                        The Planning Officer said whilst it was not referred to in the report it was being taken into consideration at the meeting and regard made to it.  Following discussions with fellow officers it did have significant weight but did not alter the recommendation. 

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya sought further clarification on the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan which had been adopted and accepted by this Council.  Members were told over and over again that it was a material planning consideration but we are not putting any weight on this.  Were officers saying it was not relevant?

                        The Planning Officer clarified that officers were not saying it was not relevant there was weight attached to it, but it was one of a number of policies.  It was not purely a tick box exercise as officers needed to have identified the harm.  The application would not comply with Policy 4.1 and officers recognise that but for the reasons outlined do not consider it constitutes reasons for refusal.  Officers were not saying it was not a material consideration.  It was a material consideration but they did not consider there was identified harm to justify refusal because it did not comply with the Policy.

                        Councillor David Raw was concerned about the loss of the bungalows.  Elderly people needed to be considered.  As Councillor Khiroya had said regard had to be made to Policy 4.1 and the ability to be able to refuse permission on that.  The fact that Councillors had all voted for the Neighbourhood Plan should be considered.

                        The Planning Officer advised that officers were not saying you can’t refuse on that basis what they were saying was it was a material consideration but do not consider that the harm justified refusal.  If Members were to come to a different conclusion Members would need to clearly identify the harm as a result of failing to comply with that policy.  It was not simply a case of it does not comply with Policy 4.1.  Members needed to identify what was the harm.  Each application was always considered separately as each site circumstances and situations are different. The Parish Council did mention there are other applications on the agenda where the policy would be referenced.  Officers are not suggesting that Members should make the same decision on each application but need to have regard to any decision that was made on this application moving forward. 

                        Councillor David Raw said the speaker who spoke against the application mentioned an 83% increase on the property do officers agree with that estimation. 

                        The Planning Officer advised they had not undertaken a full space calculation on the percentage increase.  In the assessment of the application the officer had looked at the size and scale of the development just as a whole rather than doing a specific calculation on a percentage increase.

                        The Planning Officers further stated that generally the use of the term percentage increases was for Green Belt applications because the supplementary planning document talks about percentage increases.  In relation to assessing impact generally in terms of character, appearance, mass and bulk it was a judgement you have to make as it was not about being acceptable up to a particular percentage and not acceptable after that percentage.  If Members think that the scale of the development was unacceptable they needed to explain why.  It was not a numeric calculation.

                        Councillor Alex Hayward picked up on the point made about looking at properties which had been identified as similar to this one.  Could some context be provided on where they were located?  Officers had mentioned Rendlesham Way, where was that in context to this property.

                        The Planning Officer showed the location plan and advised if you were to come out of the property and turn left and walk up Rendlesham Way No.5 and No.7 were the two properties referred to just a short distance around the corner.  The properties referred to in Furze View were located a bit further up to the left of Rendlesham Way.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford said Members were not able to make planning a tick box exercise.  If Members did grade everything they would not need to be here tonight.  The Committee were here to balance up everything in weighing up their decision on the application.  Apart from that every decision made and every plan we have had to conform within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which dominates over the Councils policy.  This Council, as the Local Planning Authority, had the power to determine the application which means that its Local Plan was above the Neighbourhood Plan in terms of the weight that was given.  In some ways Neighbourhood Plans were not worth the paper they were written on because we are stuck in this hierarchy of what we are allowed to do.  We are not able to just take the Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan or the NPPF we have to take all into account.  Whilst we may have one less bungalow it meant one more family home.  There was huge demand in the area for family homes.  People want larger houses with more rooms and they don’t want single storey living to bring their family up in.  Most of us are not bringing up our families in single storey dwellings.  We can’t just look at the Neighbourhood Plan and say extending bungalows is out any more than we can look at the Local Plan and say that’s in then.

                        Councillor Raj Khiroya said if the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan had no value why had it taken 8 years to prepare the plan.  We had confirmation earlier on that it was a material consideration and we are now saying it was not relevant here.

                        Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Ruth Clark, that Planning Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 5 For, 3 Against and 2 Abstentions.

                        RESOLVED:

                        The Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer report.

                        The meeting was adjourned for a few minutes to allow observers for the next application to join the meeting.