Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey front porch.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

43.38         This application was for the erection of a two storey side extension and single storey front porch.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.39         The Planning Assistant advised that this was a householder application for Jasmine Cottage, a semi-detached dwelling located in Boddington within the Green Belt.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees but it was the Officer opinion that the proposal would be inappropriate development which, by definition, was harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.  The proposal would also have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt, as outlined in the Committee report.  Very special circumstances had been put forward in the form of the permitted development fallback position – three single storey extensions, a rear dormer and an outbuilding.  As set out at Page No. 128, Paragraph 8.21 of the Committee report, Officers considered that the outbuilding would not be able to be erected under permitted development rights.  The proposed fallback position was materially smaller than the proposal and would have a lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt, therefore, Officers were of the opinion that this would not constitute very special circumstances.  As outlined in the Committee report, a previous application on the site was refused and later dismissed at appeal on the grounds that it was found to be a disproportionate addition which caused harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  Whilst the gross internal floor area of the current application had been reduced, Officers considered that this reduction would not address the harm upon the openness of the Green Belt as previously identified by the Inspector.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.  The Planning Assistant advised that the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, indicated that an email had been received from the applicant’s agent but this had not changed the Officer recommendation and he confirmed that no further representations had been received since the expiration of the site notice yesterday.

43.40         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that, following a previously refused application for householder extensions to the property, the applicant had reviewed the scale and design of the proposals in line with comments made, and in order to better reflect the character of the area and the overall impact on the Green Belt.  Through the removal of a large two-storey rear gable extension with single storey elements, this had substantially reduced the proposed floorspace by 41% from the previous scheme.  As Members would have acknowledged on the Planning Committee Site Visit, and from the photographs displayed today, the revised proposals had reduced the scale of the extensions at the property to essentially match those at the attached neighbouring property, Laburnum Cottage, which would serve to balance the pair of semi-detached properties.  Although the extensions at Laburnum Cottage were permitted some 30 years earlier, the planning policies in place for extensions of existing buildings in the Green Belt were virtually the same as the present day.  In addition, the application had highlighted property extensions of a similar scale locally, for example, No. 3, 6 and 12 Withybridge Gardens, a short distance to the north of the site.  Members may also recall the Green Belt extensions at Chestnut Barn, a short distance to the south of Jasmine Cottage in Barrow, which had been approved by the Planning Committee 18 months ago in 2021 where similar Officer concerns had been raised.  Finally, as highlighted in the Committee report, there was a credible fallback position available to the applicant relating to significant side, rear and roof extensions that could be constructed under permitted development, without the need for planning permission.  Not only would those permitted development extensions result in a similar additional floorspace to that proposed under this application, but they would also unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings resulting in a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and character of the area, spreading development over a large proportion of the site.  The proposed extension subject of this application would be vastly superior in design.  It was the view of the applicant’s agent that this represented a credible fallback position which would amount to clear very special circumstances in favour of the development.  The applicant’s agent pointed out there were no outstanding objections from statutory consultees in relation to the proposals and the Parish Council was supportive of the development.  Other than in relation to Green Belt policy, the Planning Assistant had noted there were no other planning policy concerns with the development.  In conclusion, the proposed extensions had been appropriately designed to overcome previous concerns raised and the scale of the extensions would accord with other recent nearby examples including the attached neighbour.  As a result, the openness of the Green Belt would be preserved in this location.  Notwithstanding this, a clear fallback position of the less desirable permitted development extensions existed in this instance.  The proposals therefore sought to accord with the development plan and the applicant was now seeking the Planning Committee’s support in the determination of the application.

43.41         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted as the proposed extensions would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the original building and the permitted development fallback position constituted very special circumstances.  The proposer of the motion indicated that the reason the application was recommended for refusal was because it would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building; however, as there was no planning guidance for what was considered disproportionate, it was down to Members to make that judgement.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that the Planning Committee had visited the application site and had noted that the adjoining property had been extended to at least double its original size and he agreed with the applicant’s agent that this proposal would balance out the two properties.  In his view, the permitted development fallback position would have a greater impact on the Green Belt than what was being proposed.  Another Member noted that there had been similar situations in other parts of the borough where houses had originally been built as farm workers’ accommodation at a time when smaller properties suited people’s housing needs.  In these modern times, he could understand why the applicant would want to make this into a family-sized dwelling, particularly when the neighbouring property had already been extended.  The Legal Adviser explained that indicative conditions would be needed, should Members be minded to permit the application.  She noted the reference to the neighbouring property doubling in size and she pointed out that many people may well consider that to be a disproportionate addition.  The Development Management Team Leader advised that, with regard to the adjacent property, the appeal decision issued by the Inspector last year had considered arguements that it would result in a balanced scheme and would not be particularly harmful to the function of the streetscene.  Another Member indicated that the proposed extensions had been marked out on the Planning Committee Site Visit and she had not thought it looked particularly large.  In her eyes, it would be a proportionate addition and, although it was in the Green Belt, she did not think it would impact anyone around it.

43.42         The Planning Assistant advised that, should Members be minded to permit the application, conditions should be included around the timescales for implementation of the development, the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans and materials along with a restriction on permitted development to prevent additional extensions due to the location in the Green Belt.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED as the proposed extensions would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the original building and the permitted development fallback position constituted very special circumstances subject to conditions in relation to commencement of development, the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans, materials and a restriction on permitted development to prevent additional extensions due to the location in the Green Belt.