Agenda item

Adam Ralton, Development Management Team Leader advised the Committee that a document has been circulated by the applicant to all Councillors regarding the application. Officers consider that the points raised in the document are all covered in the committee report.

The officer also provided an overview of the existing and proposed plans, highlighting the differences between them. The officer explained the various drawings that illustrate the planning history of the site, including previously approved extensions and the current proposals. Specific attention was given to the permitted developments, including a single storey rear and side extension. The officer emphasized the need for clarity regarding the proposed changes and their implications for the site.

In response to a request by Members, the officer informed the Committee that the floor area of the property with the proposed extension is 175 square meters. The officer also responded to another question raised by Members, explaining that the reason the elements may not all be able to be constructed at the same time is down to how the roofs of the individual elements of the planning permission scheme and the permitted development scheme interact. They interact in such a way that it wouldn’t be possible to build both of them in accordance with the drawings that have been approved. It might mean that there would need to be an amendment made to those schemes before the roofs could be built and completed. Whilst on the floor plan the roofs don’t touch, there is interaction above the floor.

The applicant, Mr. Bishop spoke in support of the application.

The Committee requested that officers address the points raised by the applicant.

Adam Ralton, Development Management Team Leader explained that the concern the officers have is the total size and volume of the extensions that’s being built cumulatively. The difference between a flat roof extension to the rear and a much larger, bulkier structure with a large roof. It can be seen on the drawings the difference the roof makes on the rear elevations. That is one part of the additional massing and the volume that officers have concerns with.

The officer further explained that officers are not suggesting box dormers and rubber roof cappings, but they might be something that would be achievable if that complies with the conditions in the permitted development order. Ultimately, whilst there have been a number of applications that have been approved, that allow a particular footprint and massing, officers’ concern is the massing of the extensions overall.

Members of the Committee argued that multiple planning applications should not be combined to circumvent existing regulations, and the overall development’s acceptability should be evaluated based on its impact on the green belt’s openness rather than strict adherence to outdated metrics. Members concluded that, given the lack of direct neighbours to the property, the proposed extension would not harm the green belt’s openness.

Members requested clarification on the square meterage information of the areas that are being proposed, and the officer clarified that it was 17 square meters.

The officer advised the Committee that if Members were minded to overturn the recommendation and grant planning permission, officers would suggest three conditions to be added, which are standard and would go on any planning permission. The first condition to set out that materials should match the existing building, the second condition to set out that the development starts within three years, and the third condition to set out that the development should be done in accordance with the current plans.

Members requested that informatives should also be added on working hours and the size of vehicles driving to and from the property.

The officer advised that they do not consider that it would be reasonable to restrict the size of vehicles driving to and from the property because it would be difficult to know what size they can be restricted to.

Members of the Committee summarised that the reason for overturning the officer recommendation for refusal was that the current application has a lesser impact on the green belt compared to permitted development schemes.

Councillor Philip Hearn proposed an alternative recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 6 For, 1 Against, 0 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That PLANNING PERMISSION is APPROVED subject to conditions.