Agenda item

Report attached

The planning application before members proposed the demolition of existing stabling, storage, and residential buildings and the erection of five houses, along with landscaping and associated works.

The application was brought before Members on 24 October 2013. Members resolved to defer the application to allow for a committee site visit and for clarification relating to several issues. The applicants had subsequently decided to appeal against non-determination and members were therefore asked to give a determination as to the Council’s case at appeal.

Members were advised that the Certificate of Lawfulness reference number referred to on page twenty four of the report should have read E0020.12 and not E0029.12.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant.

The objector commented that as no site visit had taken place members could not fully appreciate the affect that the proposed development would have on the local area. The objector commented that the proposed development would: lead to a net loss of open greenbelt; be on a different footprint to the existing building; be significantly higher than the existing buildings. Questions were raised as to whether adequate restrictions could be placed on further development being carried out on the site. The objector also raised issues on intrusive lighting from the new buildings and the new access road.

In response the applicant commented that the report clarified members’ previous concerns regarding the proposed development specifically noting that: a large proportion of the site would be returned to open green belt; the applicant had no control over the land surrounding the development site; no animals were kept in the residential units  currently on the application site. 

With its agreement Councillors Denis O’Flynn and Keith Darvill addressed the Committee.

Councillor O’Flynn commented that some local residents were unaware of the existence of the certificates of lawful existing use for the existing buildings on the development site.  Councillor O’Flynn also commented that a petition with seventy nine signatures and elven letters of representation had been submitted to the Council objecting to the proposal. Councillor O’Flynn suggested that the development would harm the outlook of existing properties and the semi-rural nature of the area stating that the application represented a threat to the green belt. Councillor O’Flynn questioned why there was no objection from the Highways Authority despite there being issues relating to a sinking road and the potential for future drainage problems and increased traffic volume in the area.

Councillor Darvill commented that the proposal was an inappropriate development of the site which was an area of special character. Councillor Darvill also commented that the proposal was being built on higher ground than the existing buildings which would lead to intrusive lighting affecting neighbouring properties.

During the debate members discussed the current use of the land and received clarification on the boundary of the site. A Member stated that he had gained admittance to the site and was disappointed that other members had been refused entry. The member also queried the ownership of the land surrounding the site. Members discussed the possible precedent that could be set by building on Green Belt land. Members received clarification on the position of the existing buildings on the site. Members also considered the height, mass and scale of the proposed  buildings.  Members considered the visual impact of the proposed development on the open nature of the green belt. A member noted that it may have preferable for the proposed dwellings to be built on the same footprint of the existing dwellings on the site.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse planning permission it was RESOLVED that the Council object to the non-determination appeal on the grounds of:

Inappropriateness:

The proposed development would, by reason of its height/bulk/massing, be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Very special circumstances, that overcome the harm by reason of inappropriateness and other harm, have not been demonstrated in this case. The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance contained in the NPPF.

Visual Amenities:

The proposed development, by reason of its height/bulk/massing, would be detrimental to the visual amenities and open character of the Green Belt, and was therefore contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

Absence of Legal Agreement:

In the absence of a completed legal agreement there would be inadequate provision made for the securing of contributions towards infrastructure costs, contrary to Policy DC72 of the LDF, or the removal of existing structures benefitting from certificates of lawfulness, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF and the Green Belt guidance contained in the NPPF.