Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey detached residential annex and garden storage used ancillary to the host dwelling (Elm Gardens) following demolition of existing residential outbuilding.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

13.7          This application was for a proposed single storey detached residential annex and garden storage used ancillary to the host dwelling (Elm Gardens) following demolition of the existing residential outbuilding.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 25 May 2023 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the appropriateness of the development in Green Belt policy terms.  The Planning Committee had visited the site on Friday 16 June 2023.

13.8          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a detached dwelling with a large outbuilding to the rear, it was located on the western side of Badgeworth Road within the Green Belt.  The existing block plan showed the location of the existing structure to the rear and the kennels had now been added along with the temporary mobile home which would be removed in six months and therefore was not shown on the proposed block plan.  Members were advised that the annex would provide a disabled accessible single storey one bedroom unit with an attached garden store.  The proposed building would have a simple linear pitched roof design which would be finished in render and slate.  It would be smaller than the building it replaced and would have a lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  It was considered to be acceptable in terms of design and appearance and, given the substantial curtilage and separation from other nearby properties, there would be no adverse impact on any other occupiers.  As such, it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report.

13.9          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the proposal was for a single detached residential annex building to be used ancillary to the host dwelling at Elm Gardens, following demolition of the existing residential outbuildings within its residential curtilage.  He made reference to the personal circumstances of the applicant and the need for level access accommodation and pointed out that the Tewkesbury Borough Plan was supportive of the provision of such annexes to support households and dependent family members.  The Planning Officer agreed that the principle of development was acceptable as set out in the Committee report.  The applicant’s agent went on to explain that the new building was formed following the removal of a pair of ancillary residential outbuildings within the established curtilage which had become redundant for use.  It was acknowledged that the site lay within Green Belt; however, as set out by the Planning Officer, replacement residential buildings were allowed in the Green Belt where the new residential building was not materially larger than the one it replaced.  In this instance, the new building would have a 29% smaller footprint, a 28% reduction in volume and a 300mm reduction in height over the original outbuildings to be removed.  Therefore, the proposals were materially smaller than the existing buildings.  Not only would this meet national and local policy requirements but it would have a positive beneficial impact on the openness of the Green Belt compared to the existing situation.  The new building had been designed to match the character and materials of the host dwelling, which Officers noted would represent a visual improvement to the area and the applicant’s agent agreed with that.  Matters relating to neighbouring amenity, highway impacts, drainage and trees had been considered and statutory consultees raised no objections.  In conclusion, the applicant’s agent felt it was clear that the proposed annex was acceptable in principle and would meet the requirements of local policy.  The proposed reduction in built form and the design to match the host dwelling would also have significant beneficial impact on the character of the area and the Green Belt.  Overall, the proposals accorded with the development plan and he asked Members to support the application in line with the Officer recommendation to permit.

13.10        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member asked whether the agricultural occupancy tie which had been lifted in 2019 had been removed from the property or whether it had been removed for a particular resident.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the agricultural tie related to the land.  The application in 2018 was for a Certificate of Lawful Use as residential use of the dwelling was in breach of the agricultural occupancy condition.  In response to a query as to whether the tie had been permanently removed, the Legal Adviser confirmed that, as there had been a Certificate of Lawful Use in the breach, it could effectively continue.  Another Member drew attention to condition 3 which stated that the development would only be used in conjunction with, and as ancillary to, the residential enjoyment of the adjoining dwelling known as Elm Gardens.  She asked whether the wording could be amended to specify that a kitchen would not be added without a change of use application as her understanding was that it would not be classed as a separate dwelling without one.  The Planning Officer advised it was to do with functional reliance as well as distance from properties, therefore, in her view it would still be considered ancillary if a kitchen was added.  The Legal Adviser advised it would be unreasonable for the condition to specify there was no kitchen and many annexes had kitchens of their own with such annexes having conditions that they must remain ancillary to the dwelling.  The Member asked what measures were in place to ensure it did not become a residential dwelling over time and the Development Management Manager advised that it was necessary to apply reasonable tested conditions appropriate to a planning application of this type; if Officers became aware of any concerns regarding breaches, these would be subject to investigation by the Compliance team. 

13.11        A Member queried whether there was any way of accessing the main property from the annex as she did not consider a gravel yard to be particularly conducive to wheelchair use.  The Planning Officer explained that disabled access into the house was unnecessary and indicated that the annex was required because the occupants could not access the house.  It was envisaged that the residents of the main house would take food from the kitchen to the annex rather than the person using the annex entering the main house.  The Member understood this explanation but felt this undermined the ancillary use and that it would become a more permanent residential usage if the occupants were not accessing the main building.  The Development Management Manager acknowledged this concern and indicated that it was possible that improvements in internal servicing would be made under permitted development rights but that was not something that could be reasonably controlled at this stage.  The proposed conditions reflected the ancillary nature of the proposal and, should there be any concerns going forward, they could be investigated at the appropriate time.

13.12        A Member expressed concern regarding attrition of the Green Belt and the precedent being set each time planning permission for developments such as this were granted.  He sought assurance that replacing a temporary structure with a permanent structure complied with the National Planning Policy Framework.  In response, the Development Management Manager confirmed that, as set out in the Committee report, Officers had undertaken careful analysis of appropriateness of the development in Green Belt terms and this particular proposal provided benefits to the Green Belt with regard to openness.  He reassured Members that permitting this application would not set a precedent for this type of development as each proposal must be assessed on its own merits.  A Member noted that the applicant’s agent had stated there was no local objection to the proposal; however, the Committee report set out that both Badgeworth and Staverton Parish Councils had objected on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt which should be acknowledged.  In response to a query as to whether the property benefited from permitted development rights, the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that planning permission would not be required for another ancillary use, such as a gym, but as this proposal was for living accommodation planning permission was required.

13.13        The proposer of the motion indicated that he had requested a Committee determination in order to assess the proposal against Green Belt policies.  In this instance, there had been objection from the Parish Council but at the last Committee, the Parish Council had fully supported an application which was recommended for refusal and this demonstrated the need to assess each application on its merits – sometimes development in the Green Belt was acceptable and sometimes it was not but, in this case, he agreed with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion took on board the concerns raised by the Member regarding inappropriateness in the Green Belt; however, given that the proposed building would be a reduction in size compared to the existing building, there would be a lesser impact on the Green Belt, therefore, he was happy to support the proposal.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.