This application had been considered at the previous Planning Committee on 13 September 2018 however it was deferred to allow Officers to prepare a report outlining the implications of making decisions contrary to Officers recommendations. The application sought planning permission for a two storey front extension, single storey side extension, and alterations to the roofing, basement and single storey garage block with associated hardstanding following the demolition of existing side extension and outbuilding.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt which is harmful by definition and further harm was identified through the size and number of the extensions. The proposal would also have an adverse impact upon the street scene and the character of the area.

The Chair made the Committee aware that due to Councillor Shinnick sending her apologies at the meeting on 13 September, she would be unable to vote on this item.

The Chair informed the Committee that this was a deferred item from 13 September’s Planning Committee and it was not often Members go against Officers recommendations. Based on the conversations at last month’s Committee it was evident that it was almost unanimous across the Committee that they would potentially be voting in favour of this application. He went on to state that Members and Officers ensure that all applications are assessed on their own merits.

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained the recommendation remained one of refusal. 

The Chair begun the debate and felt the application should be approved.

The Chair moved a motion to approve the application against the report’s recommendations and it was seconded by Councillor Rice. The reasons for this were that Members did not feel the greenbelt would be harmed due to the extended building. He felt the extensions were more suitable than the works that could be carried out under Permitted Development rights.

Councillor Rice explained that a lot of information was provided at the last Committee regarding this particular item, however, under Permitted Development rights the applicant would be able to do a lot more than the current application and due to this he felt the application should be approved. There were no objections from members of the public against the extended building which was considered to be positive. He suggested the Permitted Development rights should be removed as part of a condition on the permission. He also noted that the site was surrounded by a number of tall buildings and it would be positive to have executive homes within the borough.

Councillor Piccolo felt the extended building would improve the area and it would still provide a reasonable amount of open space on the site after the extensions are completed.

The summarised debate and confirmed the very special circumstances identified by the Planning Committee were as follows:-

1.    The building is considered to be more suitable than what could be carried out under permitted development;

2.  The proposal would provide a large executive house for which there is a need for in the Borough;

  3. The Council could remove Permitted Development rights if permission was granted;

  4. There were no objectors to the proposed extension;

5. There would be limited harm to the Green Belt due to the presence of other buildings and developments in the vicinity;

  6. The proposal is of good design.

The Strategic Lead – Development Services stated that Members views were clear and the steps have been followed in the Council’s Constitution. Any conditions imposed should be agreed with the Chair if the application was approved by the Committee. The Chair was happy for this to be done, and requested for this to be confirmed following the meeting via email due to the extent of the agenda. The Strategic Lead – Development Services explained if the vote was taken and Members were to approve the application it could be subject to conditions which the wording can then be agreed by the Chair. It was advised by the Strategic Lead – Development Services that the following conditions were likely to be necessary:-

1.         Time limit condition, standard condition

2.         Approved plans condition to clarify the development being permitted

3.         Materials condition to match the existing building

4.         Removal of Permitted Development rights

The Strategic Lead – Development Services asked for the legal advisor’s opinion on the process to ensure that it had been followed. The Legal Advisor agreed the process had been followed appropriately.

The Chair asked for the reasons for approval to be added in the minutes and that it be noted that all the applications are based on their own merits.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Rice that the application be approved against Officers recommendations, subject to conditions to be agreed by the Chair. 

For:                  (7) Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Colin Churchman, Angela Lawrence, Andrew Jefferies, Terry Piccolo, Sue Sammons and Gerard Rice

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           (1) Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair),

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to conditions to be approved by the Chair.