Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

34.20        This application was for a two storey side extension at The Lodge, Dryhill Farm, Crickley Hill.

34.21        Prior to introducing her report the Planning Officer advised Members of a minor error at Paragraph 7.5 – the National Policy Framework was 2019 and not 2018 and it was the Tewkesbury Local Plan Pre-Submission Version October 2019 not the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan (Preferred Options Consultation) 2011-2031.  In introducing this application, she advised that the site fell within the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application had been called in by a Member of the Committee in order to enable Members to assess the suitability of the proposal in the Green Belt and AONB. The Planning Officer stated that due to the isolated location, together with the topography and tree cover at the site, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding AONB. In terms of the Green Belt, previous extensions in 2014 resulted in an additional 240sqm (a 236% increase). Paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12 of the Officer’s report set out the very special circumstances that had led to this position. The proposal now before Members would create an additional 91.5sqm which, when combined with previous extensions, would be a 325% increase in floor space. The cumulative increase in size would be disproportionate and would by definition be harmful to the Green Belt; there had been no very special circumstances case submitted. In summary it was considered that the proposal would clearly result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling and therefore represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For this reason, the Planning Officer was recommending refusal of the application.

34.22        The Chair invited the Planning Consultant to address the Committee who stated that, unlike the earlier application in relation to Tump Court, the Officer’s only concern here was in connection with the Green Belt. The site itself could not be seen from anywhere; it was accessed by a half a mile long winding private drive from Greenway Lane; it was surrounded by very well established trees and was set against a steeply rising wooded bank. The proposal was for a modest extension to the rear of the dwelling tucked against the rising wooded bank behind and visible only from within the garden immediately to the east of the house; elsewhere within the site the extension was completely screened by the house itself. As the Officer’s report confirmed there was no harm at all to the AONB or the neighbouring amenity; the design was correct for the context and there was no conflict with any other technical matters. The single area of concern related to the alleged “disproportionate” additions over and above the original dwelling and that this was therefore inappropriate in principle regardless of the lack of adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Planning Consultant stated that in his view the Officer’s report was incorrect in how it calculated the relevant floor areas; the original dwelling did have a floor area of roughly 102sqm however earlier extensions had added to that by about 190sqm not 240sqm as suggested in the report. In addition, the Officer’s report did not fully explain that when the earlier extensions were added they replaced two existing outbuildings with a combined footprint of 140sqm and an even greater floor area which meant that there was barely any net increase in floor area at the time of the initial extensions. Based on the latter calculations the extension now sought would not result in the disproportionate additions suggested in the Officer report and equally important was the fundamental lack of harm from the proposal. The Planning Consultant referred to a court case in 2018 which had concluded on this type of situation saying that instead of treating any change as having a greater impact on openness of the Green Belt the correct approach was to consider the impact or harm, if any, brought by the change. As Members would be aware each case should be considered on its own merits; in respect of this proposal there was no identifiable harm, the floor space calculations relied upon by the Officer were not quite correct and on this basis it was perfectly reasonable for the Committee to reach a different conclusion to that contained in the Officer report. His was aware that since the publication of the report there had been at least 10 letters of support for the proposal; these had come forward after the publication of the Agenda as the authors had not imagined the scheme would be opposed. Taking all of this into account it was considered that this small extension was acceptable and not contrary to Green Belt Policy and he requested the Committee to grant permission for the application.

34.23        In proposing that the application be permitted, the proposer indicated that there was no identifiable harm as a result of this scheme. He referred to Paragraph 7.2 of the Officer report which indicated that the design was in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing property; Paragraph 7.3 which stated that due to the isolated location of the site there would be no adverse impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB; Paragraph 7.4 which referred to the fact that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers would not be unduly affected, which was obvious in his opinion, as there were no properties in close proximity so there could be no impact; and 7.6 which indicated that there were no concerns raised in relation to the amenity of the main dwelling at Dryhill Farm due to the topography of the site and the separation distances in this respect. He then drew Members’ attention to Paragraph 7.16 which stated that the proposal would amount to “new build development” in an area which was currently open and therefore would result in some harm to openness, but if you looked from the site down into the valley basin he suggested there had been a considerable encroachment into the openness of the Green Belt with the granting of permission of 1,500 houses and if that did not constitute harm then he failed to understand how this proposal could be deemed harmful. The report also indicated that the increase in size would be disproportionate to the original dwelling but the Member was unsure as to which original dwelling as this was the site of a Roman Villa which was about 2,000 years old and had 12 bedrooms/rooms. The motion to permit this application was seconded and a debate ensued. Another Member again sought policy reasons for overturning the recommendation in the interests of consistency as the site was in the Green Belt, AONB and in close proximity to the Crickley Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The proposer of the motion maintained that, like the previous application where the Committee had taken a different decision, this was more a judgement call as to whether the extension was considered to be disproportionate. The Development Manager in offering clarification indicated how pleased he was that the speaker had acknowledged that each case should be considered on its own merit as this was a mantra he had long supported; in terms of the original dwelling this was taken to be as first built or as stood in July 1947 but he was unsure what of the Roman remains were still standing at that time; what was very clear, which was, he thought, also agreed by the speaker, was that the original dwelling had a floor space of 102sqm and whatever measurement calculations were applied, that of the Applicant or the Officer, the additions represented a 200% increase or more over that of the original dwelling. He was therefore of the view that by any measurement the additions were disproportionate and therefore, in terms of policy, it was necessary to consider whether there were any very special circumstances in this case. From the discussion that had taken place it appeared Members were of the view that because of the location of the extension and the fact that it nestled between the existing dwelling and the bank at the rear, which meant that it was well screened, this could amount to very special circumstances which outweighed the definition of harm to the Green Belt. In terms of conditions should a permission be granted the standard ones would apply in relation to the 5-year time period, the development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents and the matching of materials. Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That, in view of the very special circumstances in this case relating to the location of the extension and particularly the fact that it nestled between the existing dwelling and the bank at the rear of the property, which meant that it was well screened and therefore outweighed the definition of harm to the Green Belt, the application be PERMITTED, subject to the conditions outlined above.