The planning application proposed a two storey front extension, single storey side extensions, and alterations to the roof, basement and single storey garage block with associated hard standing following the demolition of existing side extension and outbuilding. The site is located in Bulphan within the Green Belt.

 

The application was called in by Councillors G Rice, S Shinnick, L Worrall, C Baldwin and B Rice to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of the Green Belt policy.

 

The Principal Planner referred to a number of photos shown of the site and where the existing building is located.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that there had been a number of Lawful Development Certificates granted since the previous appeal on the site although only one had been implemented.

 

The Principal Planner stated the only building which will be demolished would be the existing outbuilding.

 

The Principal Planner shared one update within the report on page 113 point 6.6, which stated that the existing building was original dwelling was for the purpose of Green Belt policy. However, it was confirmed that the two storey rear extension allowed under permitted development has been built. This two storey rear extension has a floor space of 93sqm which already exceeds the 46sqm proportionate extension allowance. The previous application in 2009 was refused by the Planning Committee as the proposed building would impact on the Green Belt.

 

The Chair opened the Committee to questions

 

Councillor Rice asked if there were any objections for the proposed application from neighbours. The Principal Planner confirmed there had been no letters of objection received in regards to this.

 

Councillor Rice asked if the applicant could extend the building through permitted development, although they would not have the right to do all that was being requested as part of the planning application.  He also noted that a Manor House is supposed to be a large building and would ask if conditions could be imposed to remove permitted development. The Principal Planner agreed if they are granting planning permission then the Permitted development rights could be removed, although it would not restrict a considerable amount or stop planning applications.

 

The Principal Planner briefed the committee on the extensive planning history on this site. In 2012 a two storey rear extension and increase in roof height to part of the existing roof slope and replacement chimney was proposed and this was approved at Planning Committee. In 2016 a single storey side extension and outbuilding was also approved, along with single storey side extensions in 2017.

 

The Principal Planner advised the very special circumstances argument put forward in this case was capable of being replicated elsewhere. There are a large number of houses in the borough that do have permitted development rights and could put forward the same argument.

 

Councillor Jefferies asked for clarity on the size and how it compares to the extensions which could be carried out under permitted development. Councillor Kelly shared that it was less than what was being proposed and this was confirmed by the Principal Planner as the overall floor space would be similar.

 

Councillor Kelly asked if all three proposed extensions could be built together. The Principal Planner advised that they were applied for separately but with the potential to build them together. Councillor Kelly asked if the separate extensions would need to be brought back to Committee separately. It was confirmed there would be no reason to bring the permitted development applications back to Committee.

 

Councillor Piccolo wanted to confirm that under permitted development the dwellings can be built bigger than what was being proposed. The Principal Planner stated the permitted development proposals would not allow for the existing two storey extension and single storey wings to be connected. In terms of the outbuilding the proposed garage is smaller than that which was proposed under permitted development. Councillor Piccolo asked what the height of the outside building would be, although the principal Planner did not have the figures of the outside building.

 

Councillor Lawrence pointed out that the applicant is trying to extend his home and has applied for the relevant planning permissions to build on his property. The property is not having any impact on the neighbours. She felt the applicant should be given the opportunity to extend his property.

 

The Principal Planner highlighted that the property is in Green Belt and therefore it would need to be assessed against relevant policy. The applicant had applied for planning permission in 2009 however it was dismissed and there have been no applications since other than Lawful Development Certificates.

 

The Agent, Mr David Wallis, was invited to the Committee to present his statement of support.

 

The Chair opened the Committee to debate.

 

The Chair said initially reading the report he felt it would affect the Green Belt.  Although there are concerns the application would impact on the Green Belt he noted there are two industrial sites near the development. The houses in Bulphan need to be diverse with a range of different style homes as Thurrock lacks larger built properties. The Committee should respect applications that supply the relevant information as some applicants do not apply for permission before building.

 

Councillor Piccolo asked for clarity on what was being proposed as it was not clear, He was of the opinion the proposed extensions would have a bigger impact on Green Belt than the Permitted Development fall-back scheme. Councillor Piccolo took the view that the proposal would not be out of character for the extensions to be built as long as Permitted Development rights could be removed as it would prevent further Permitted Development applications. He could not agree for the application to be rejected.

 

Councillor Churchman felt the property would present a better appearance although he was mindful that it was subject for refusal.

 

Councillor Rice said when applicants come forward and propose buildings similar to this one, they should be encouraged to build in the Borough. There had been no objections from neighbours therefore he felt the scheme would be positive and he would support the application as Thurrock needs larger homes in the Borough, this may even encourage the Chief Executive to purchase a property in Thurrock. He agreed that the application should be approved.

 

Councillor Jefferies stated that initially he thought there would be no debate as the Green Belt would be impacted, however he agreed he was in favour to vote for approval on this application.

 

Councillor Piccolo wanted to ensure that conditions would be imposed given that the application was recommended for refusal.

 

Councillor Kelly advised Members that they would need to be careful as all applications are taken with their own merits but other developers may not see it as unique. It would need to be clear that the Permitted Development was not the biggest factor.

 

Councillor Rice recommended a motion that the application was approved and Permitted Development rights should be removed to ensure the application cannot return and extend more on the property. Councillor Kelly seconded the motion.

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services referred the Committee to the Council’s Constitution on page 134 point 7.2 (as seen below):

 

If the Planning Committee seeks to make a decision contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation (whether for approval or refusal), the following will apply:

 

a.         The mover of the motion should clearly specify or write down the motion including the reasons for departing from the Officer recommendation. Both the reasons and the motion should be put to the Committee orally and in public even if the reasons are tentative. Any such motion must be seconded;

 

b.         The Planning Officer should always be given the opportunity to explain the implications of what has been proposed to the Planning Committee in public before any vote is taken;

 

c.         If the Planning Committee's arguments against the Planning Officer’s recommendations are very clear and substantiated and no longer tentative on planning grounds the application shall be determined at the meeting. If not, the application should be deferred to enable the Planning Officer to draft a further report for a subsequent meeting of the Committee, outlining the implications of making a decision contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation. If appropriate, the legal advisor's opinion should be sought as to whether a deferral is necessary. The Committee's reasons must be formally recorded in the minutes.

 

The Strategic Lead – Development Services advised the Committee that when assessed against development plan policy the application is unacceptable. The proposal represents inappropriate development and is harmful by definition, further harm has also been identified through the massing and bulk of the extensions, particularly at first floor and roof level. The proposal is therefore unacceptable when assessed against Policy PMD6 and also the NPPF. The NPPF sets out that the substantial weight should be given to any harm that would be caused. The fall-back position had been considered in the report but does not clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused. Members were advised that approval of the application could set a dangerous precedent in the Green Belt because a VSC case centred on PD fall back could be repeated time and time again.

 

The Strategic Lead recommended the application is deferred and officers prepare a report on the implications of approving the application and in particular focusing upon the VSC case presented and the fall-back position.  The deferral of the item would also enable officers to liaise with the Council’s Legal Team. 

 

The Chair agreed with the statement from The Strategic Lead and suggested the item be deferred to a later date for Officers to clarify the rules and regulations and to seek further advice. Once this has been completed the item should be brought back to Committee.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Strategic Lead asked for confirmation from the Legal Advisor, Mr Capstick that he was happy with the process. The Legal Advisor confirmed agreement. 

 

The Chair asked Members to vote on this motion.

 

Democratic Services Officer was asked to confirm in the Constitution the voting process on a motion as Councillor Rice put a motion forward that the item be deferred.

 

Councillor Piccolo asked whether any report returning to Committee would include options to impose conditions to control impacts of development, such as construction times. Councillor Piccolo sought assurance that in the event that Members decided to approve the application next month the matter of conditions could be addressed.

 

The Strategic Lead advised that when the report is taken back to Committee it would be clear on the extent planning conditions could be used to control Permitted Development rights and any other impacts that may arise.

 

It was agreed by all Councillors that the application to be deferred and brought back to Committee at a later date. The motion was submitted with the potential to approve against the Officers recommendation.

 

For (8): Councillors T Kelly, S Liddiard, C Churchman, A Jefferies, T Piccolo, G Rice, S Sammons and A Lawrence.

 

Against: (0)

 

Abstain: (0)

 

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred, to allow Officers to prepare a report on the implications of approving the application against officer recommendation and to consider appropriate conditions which could be imposed.