Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal.

Proposal: Householder application for proposed erection of part single, part two storey side/rear extensions, single storey front extension, plus erection of garden room.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs C & J Copland

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 119 to 142.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included a correction to the table at paragraph 16.

Adrian Gould, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the application had local precedent with other properties having similar works done to their properties, and fall-back position case law. Adrian was of the opinion that common sense needed to be applied to this application, as the applicant already had permission to build large outbuildings which would cause more harm and leave a bigger footprint on the greenbelt than the current proposals before the Committee.

Chris Copland, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that his property had not been extended to date, whereas neighbouring properties had been. He added that his original application was refused due to the lack of a fall-back position, and as a result the application before the Committee was smaller in volume and footprint than the original application and included a valid fall-back position. Chris stated that the current proposals were less disruptive and impactful on the green belt that the fall-back position, however they were fully prepared to implement the fall-back position should the application be refused.

John Halsall, Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the Planning Case Officer had done a good and thorough job with regards to this application. John was of the opinion that in this particular instance the planning policy was an absurdity, which would cause more harm to the green belt. John stated that he was a strong defender of the green belt, however the green belt required families to protect and maintain it. John added that the NPPF stated that harm to the green belt should be accounted for, and if it would be more harmful to apply planning policy to this application then the policy should not be applied. John stated that the current proposals were less harmful to the greenbelt than the approved fall-back position. John was of the opinion that the Case officer shared this opinion, however they were guided by policy in this instance. John urged the Committee to approve the application as it would cause less harm to the greenbelt than the already approved proposals.

Angus Ross queried where the permitted side extension was approved. Stefan Fludger, Case Officer, clarified that the side extension was approved under delegated powers and amounted to a 34% increase in the volume of the original dwelling.

A number of Member queried why the fall-back position would be unlikely to be implemented. Stefan Fludger stated that the permitted development rights outbuildings would need to be fully constructed prior to the commencement of the side extension. He added that it would appear to be impractical to build the rear outbuildings prior to the commencement of the side extension, and added that it would be difficult for the applicant to use the outbuildings for residential use as they were separated from the main dwelling.

Stefan Fludger clarified that if construction began on the side extension prior to the completion of the permitted development rights construction, then the permitted development rights would be revoked. Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor, confirmed this to be correct.

A number of Members queried what constituted very special circumstances. In response, Stefan Fludger stated that a fall-back position constituted very special circumstances, however Officers had only put limited weight on this particular fall-back position, as it was not deemed feasible for the applicant to live across several outbuildings across the site. Stefan added that the question for the decision maker was to decide how likely the fall-back position was to occur.

A number of Members were of the opinion that the fall-back position was feasible, and would cause greater harm to the green belt than the current application.

Chris Bowring was of the opinion that the ideal situation for the green belt was to refuse the application, as Officers had deemed it unlikely that the fall-back position would be implemented, thereby leaving a lesser footprint on the greenbelt.

Marcia Head, Lead Specialist - Development Management & Compliance, stated that if Members were minded to approve the application, the applicant could build the permitted development rights outbuildings and complete them prior to beginning work on the current application. A number of Members queried whether a legal agreement could be implemented whereby the permitted development rights could be revoked should the current application be approved. Marcia stated that a unilateral agreement could have been submitted with this application and was not. However, Marcia added that such a legal agreement could be arranged should Members be inclined to approve the application.

The Committee sought clarification from the Agent with regards to the legal agreement. Adrian Gould stated that a legal agreement had been discussed with the Case Officer and that he and the applicant had expected the application to be recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement, and commented that the applicant had already agreed to legal fees of £1000 to support this. In Adrian’s opinion, there was a late change of direction from Senior Planning Officers and subsequently the application was recommended for refusal without a legal agreement. 

RESOLVED: That application 183289 be refused, as the proposed extensions would enlarge the volume of the original dwelling beyond 35% within the greenbelt with no very special circumstances existing which would clearly outweigh the harm identified, and the proposals would therefore be contrary to policies CP12, TB01 and section 13 of the NPPF.