The Principal Planning Officer presented the application, briefly reminding members of the previous presentation, and highlighted the following points:

·       The application is for a garage extension in the Green Belt and a site visit took place on Wednesday 15^th November 2023 where Members viewed the site. The garage is 60sq metres and would sit in line with the existing driveway.

·       The application is recommended for refusal.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Shinnick asked where the building would be in line with the conifer trees at the site.

o   Estimate of 2 metres from the boundary.

·       Councillor Piccolo asked if there were any photos of the parked cars.

o   Officer went through the images of the site including the vehicles on site for the Committee.

During the debate the following was highlighted:

·       The Chair opened stating the site visit was useful and you could see the area was enclosed and that a garage could improve the situation as currently the cars were covered by tarpaulin. The Chair could see both sides of the argument and noted it wasn’t an easy decision. The Chair noted the recommendation and how the application could damage the Green Belt but also noted the merits of the application.

·       Councillor Arnold stated that the application was a development in the Green Belt that wasn’t necessary. The building may not be seen, but it would still be there and foresaw other applications of a similar nature being submitted across the borough. Councillor Arnold also stated a line had to be drawn in the sand somewhere.

·       Councillor Maney stated it is not wherever the building would be visible or not but the fact the garage would be on the Green Belt. Councillor Maney was also concerned by the scale, was conflicted and understood why the application was submitted by the resident.

·       Councillor Piccolo was glad he visited the site and noted the site would not be visible from any angle and believed that the area/view would improve if the cars were able to be put in a garage. Councillor Piccolo argued for an exception to be made.

·       Councillor Liddiard stated if the premise is used that buildings can’t be seen in the Green Belt and therefore allow them applications would increase in number and cause chaos and was of the opinion the application should be refused.

·       Councillor Watson didn’t understand why the building needed to be so big and agreed with Councillor Liddiard and said we shouldn’t set a precedent.

·       Councillor Polley noted that it had been said the building couldn’t be seen due to the conifer trees and added that conifer trees can become diseased and/or felled and are not there for time immemorial. Councillor Polley also noted that the Committee’s decision can influence the future. There had been continued extensions to the footprint of the property and supported the officer’s recommendation.

·       The Chair closed the debate stating he saw both sides of the argument and called for a vote.

The Chair, Councillor Kelly read the officers recommendation.

Councillor Liddiard recommended refusal.

Councillor Watson seconded it.

For: (6) Councillors G Polley, P Arnold, S Liddiard, J Maney, S Shinnick and, and L Watson

Against: (2) Councillors T Kelly, T Piccolo

Abstained: (0)