PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side/rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.55        This application was for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.56        The Planning Assistant advised that the application required a Committee determination at the request of Councillor Porter to assess the impact upon the Green Belt. The proposal was single storey, allowing for enlarged living space which would maintain the character and appearance of the existing dwelling given the proposed dimensions and finished external materials. Due to the positioning of the host dwelling and its relationship with neighbouring properties, limited harm to neighbouring residential amenity would arise as a result of the proposal.  The application site was located within the Green Belt, therefore greater restrictions applied and Paragraph 147 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless the development consisted of the extension or alteration of a building if it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.  The existing dwelling was not original, having previously been extended with a front roof dormer and a single storey rear extension, both with planning consent. The internal floor area had already been increased by at least 50%, any further additions would therefore be considered as disproportionate which would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt which was harmful to the Green Belt by definition; however, the applicant had forwarded two indicative drawings which could be achieved via permitted development through the submission of a larger home extension application as set out within the General Permitted Development Order 2015. The larger home extension scheme was not a planning application, but an assessment of the criteria listed within the General Permitted Development Order where Green Belt was not a consideration. The two indicative drawings represented extensions which had a greater footprint than the current proposal and a real prospect of being carried out, representing fallback positions which amounted to very special circumstances. As such, whilst it was noted that the current proposal was inappropriate development in Green Belt terms, the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant were sufficient to justify the development within the Green Belt, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application as set out in the Committee report.

27.57        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the proposal was for householder extensions to a dwelling known as Plemont in the village of Shurdington, consisting of a single storey side/rear extension.  As Members would have acknowledged on the site visit last week, the property has only benefitted from a modest single storey rear extension since it was originally constructed.  The proposed extension would be entirely located to the side of the property, infilling a gap between the dwelling and boundary.  There were no neighbours on the northern side of the property so there would be no impact on neighbouring amenity. Members would also have noted that the majority of the properties along this row of dwellings set back from Shurdington Road had been extended to varying degrees over the years.  All of these neighbouring properties lay within the Green Belt and the two immediate properties to the south of the site had been extended in floor area by over 200% and 100% respectively over the years.  It was in that context that the proposed extension to Plemont has been designed.  As confirmed by Officers, it was also highly material to note there was a credible fallback position available to the applicant relating to significant side and rear extensions that could be constructed under permitted development, without the need for planning permission.  Specific design options had been provided within the submission which demonstrated the alternatives available to the occupier; not only would these permitted development extensions result in a substantially greater additional floorspace to that proposed under this application, they would also form a less cohesive design and would be detrimental to the character of the property and resulting Green Belt impact.  Rather, the proposed extension would be vastly superior in design and have a much lesser impact.  In his view, this fallback position would amount to clear very special circumstances in favour of the development and he was pleased to note this opinion was shared by Officers; there were plenty of other examples in the borough where this approach had been taken.  There were no outstanding objections from technical statutory consultees in relation to the proposals and no wider policy conflict.  In conclusion, the proposed extensions had been appropriately designed to respect the character of the host dwelling and the scale of the extensions would accord with other recent nearby examples, including the nearest neighbours.  As a result, the openness of the Green Belt would be preserved.  Notwithstanding this, a clear fallback position for less desirable permitted development extensions existed in this instance, which was a further material consideration in favour of this application.  Ultimately, the proposals accorded with the development plan and he asked Members to support the application in line with the Officer recommendation.

27.58        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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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