Agenda item

The Planning Officer reported that since the agenda was published one further letter of objection had been received which objected to the placement of the largest outbuilding on the grounds that the future owner could split the land and have that building as separate accommodation which could affect the amenity of neighbours.  The largest building would not be visible from the host dwelling and would not burden that property but would impact the neighbours.  The building should be scrutinised as a separate dwelling and the use of the building was unclear with potential late night activity.  The windows in the larger building would overlook the neighbours.  Some of those points were already covered in the report but just for completeness the officer wished to report the one further objection.

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

Parish Councillor Zenab Haji-Ismail stated the Parish did not usually call in or get involved with outbuilding applications but due to the issues raised by residents and having reviewed the report they needed to speak.  The site was located within the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area.  The objections related to the siting of the large outbuilding against the boundaries of Delamere and Lime Tree, its size, scale and impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  At Paragraph 6.1.4 of the report it stated that the proposal was not excessive in terms of its footprint and height but they strongly disagreed.  The proposed outbuildings would cumulatively measure about 70 sqm which was a 2 bedroom/four person dwelling house.  It would have a height of 3.72 metres which would be double the size of a normal fence.  It would be visually prominent in the surrounding area.  With the site being in the Green Belt, what should have been considered was whether the scheme was inappropriate for development for the purposes of the NPPF, whether it would impact on the openness of the Green Belt and whether there are very special circumstances?  The application does not benefit from any of the exceptions set out in Paragraph 145 of the NPPF so by definition it was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  No very special circumstances had been presented to allow this development which was not addressed in the report.  The assessment undertaken was whether the outbuilding was appropriate within the context of the Green Belt and that was not the test set out in the NPPF.  The essential characteristics of the Green Belt are openness and appearance.  The outbuilding and its size, to be constructed of broken slate, would clearly effect the openness of the Green Belt both spaciously and visually and would not be of a high quality.  The application should be refused otherwise the decision could be challenged if approved. 

The Planning Officer stated that in terms of the assessment the report had regard to the NPPF and had assessed the proposal against the statutory development plan and Policy DM2, which required ancillary buildings to be of a scale and design subordinate to the dwelling height and bulk that would not adversely affect the openness.  The siting would need to be in an appropriate location which would not be prominent on the landscape.  The NPPF was a consideration and was mentioned in the report and allowed extensions to dwellings provided those extensions are disproportionate to the original dwelling.  Officers generally feel that Planning Inspectors would consider outbuildings within that exception to inappropriateness.  Officers had assessed the application against the statutory development plan and often was assessed under that exception.  They found it to comply and considered it not inappropriate development and do not consider it needed the very special circumstances test. 

Councillor Debbie Morris said when there are extensions in the Green Belt we look at a 40% guideline as a maximum are officers saying that because this was an outbuilding we did not have to look at the increase from the existing footprint and volume.

The Planning Officer advised that the Development Plan policy refers to the supplementary planning guidance.  The planning policy refers to some guidance and that states that extensions to houses should not generally exceed 40%.  Because this was an outbuilding officers do not consider that the 40% guidance is appropriate because the SPG (guidance) talks solely about extensions.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if that was the Officer view or was that established in law. The Councillor was trying to obtain if that was a subjective view of officers having looked at the guidance.  Had there been an appeal decision or was there something more solid or an alternative view. 

The Planning Officer stated there was always interpretation that comes in and certainly with respect to how close buildings are to houses from when you can potentially draw a line between it being so close it looks like it could be an extension or whether it was not.  There is interpretation in that respect but generally what was quoted was not verbatim but was from the Council’s development management policies.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked about the size of the proposed scheme in terms of the footprint.  In 2012 a number of outbuildings and development had been permitted on the site which had since been removed.  Can officers advise what the footprint was of the 2012 permitted outbuildings and how that compared with the current application? 

The Planning Officer advised that in 2012 the Council approved a number of outbuildings with a cumulative footprint of those being in the region of 56 sqm.  The footprint for these three outbuildings was 92 sqm. The office (the largest outbuilding) would be 70 sqm.

Councillor Raj Khiroya came to the meeting with an open mind but having heard both the speakers the Councillor had sympathy for the neighbours.  This application was about the Green Belt and how much weight we put on it.  On the one hand we are saying we should have looked at it and protect it and on the other hand we are saying we are not going to spread an urbanising effect and it will not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. The Councillor felt this was a material planning consideration and would not be happy supporting the application. 

Councillor David Raw said considering the outbuilding would be on the boundary with the neighbour and would be 4 metres high questioned if that was acceptable.  It could be more than 4 metres.  How high would a single storey building be allowed to be considering it would be on the boundary?  It could be an eyesore for the neighbours. 

The Planning Officer stated that for the reasons set out in the report, officers felt the outbuilding would be acceptable in the location proposed.  The plans show the outbuilding to be 3.7 metres high, an eaves height of 2.2 metres so from ground floor level up to where the guttering is would be 2.2 metres with the roof pitch up to a maximum height of 3.7 metres.  Officers consider it to be acceptable in the proposed position and would be set away from the boundary therefore providing a gap.

Councillor Steve Drury advised that looking at the drawing the outbuilding would be 2 metres from the boundary and set away.  The difference in 3.7 metres and 4 metres was around a foot.

Councillor Sara Bedford asked if officers could confirm the distances between this outbuilding and the rear of Delamere and Lime Tree.  It would be slightly further from Lime Tree due to the slope of the boundary.

The Planning Officer advised the distances to the rear of the two properties were approximately 23 metres to Delamere and to Lime Trees approximately 32 metres. 

Councillor Alex Hayward asked if there were any TPOs on the site. The Councillor noted the condition that the outbuilding could not be used as a separate dwelling for residential purposes but asked how long that condition lasted and wanted to understand the fears of the neighbours that it could be used for other purposes if that condition was not there.  Where would access be gained? 

The Planning Officer confirmed there were no TPOs on the site.  There was a proposed condition attached that required the building to be used only as incidental to the enjoyment of and ancillary to the main residential dwelling and not as independent dwelling at any time.  You would only be able to use the building for activities associated with the house.  That condition would last forever and if the terms of the condition were breached then any allegation would need to be made to the planning enforcement department and they would investigate that through our standard enforcement procedures.  In terms of how you would access the outbuilding, you could only access it through the site.  At the back of the site it was surrounded by residential properties and tennis courts therefore access was only possible from the front. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya wished to propose that the application be refused on the grounds of Green Belt.  It would be overdevelopment and agreed with the points made by the Parish Council and that weight should be put on those points.

The Planning Officer said that Members needed to understand whether they would be recommending refusal based on impact of all three buildings or just the larger building and needed to understand what part of the Green Belt policy it conflicts with.  For example, Paragraph 6.1.3 of the report sets out what the development plan requirement is for ancillary buildings so Members needed to have some discussion on how they feel it would not comply with that policy to understand what the harm might be.

Councillor Raj Khiroya was referring to all the buildings as the harm is there to the Green Belt and it is all the buildings.

The Planning Officer reiterated that Members needed to be clear if it was one building that caused the harm, all three together or each one individually.  At any appeal officers would need to defend each component of a refusal so would need to know whether they would be defending based on “a” building or all three.  What the officer thought Councillor Khiroya was saying was that where the policy stated that the development needs to be of a scale and design feasible to the host dwelling and at a height and bulk which was such that it would not adversely affect the openness.  The Councillor had advised that they considered that the building or buildings would be of a scale and design which would not be subordinate to the dwelling and of a height and bulk that would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt therefore rendering the development inappropriate in the Green Belt and not being aware of any special circumstances which outweigh the harm caused by that inappropriateness. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya confirmed this was correct on the reason for refusal.  It is the size and bulk which is a real consideration.

The proposal to refuse the application was seconded by Councillor Stephen King.

The Planning Officer wished to confirm with the Committee whether the refusal was on the cumulative impact of all three buildings, the larger building or each of the buildings so officers can be clear on the reason(s) for refusal.  Most of the discussion had been on the larger building and not much discussion on gazebo and shed and wondered if it was fair to assume the concern was around the impact of the larger outbuilding in the Green Belt. 

Councillor Raj Khiroya appreciated the discussion had been on the larger building but on balance maybe the smaller dwellings can be considered but as far as the Councillor was concerned they thought it was all three.  The Councillor thought it was over development of the site and the bulk.  They were stating it was all three.

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

Councillor Sara Bedford, seconded by Councillor Steve Drury, moved the officer recommendation as set out in the report that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report.

On being put to the Committee the motion that Planning Permission be Granted with conditions was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 5 For, 2 Against and 3 Abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission Granted subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Officer report.