Agenda item

The application before members sought planning permission for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection of one single storey dwelling. The application was brought before the Committee as the applicant was a Councillor.

Members were advised that a late letter of representation had been received from the LFCDA requiring the installation of a domestic sprinkler system.

During the debate members discussed the current dilapidated building that was situated on the site and received clarification from officers as to whether the outbuildings on the site were to be demolished.

Members also discussed the size of the proposed development which was disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and the dwelling approved under application P1079.11.

Several members commented that the proposal would improve the streetscene of the area and was of sufficient distance from the adjacent road to be an overdevelopment of the site.

Mention was also made of the 50% rule in Policy DC45 and it was suggested that perhaps the policy was in need of updating to take into account a decent standard of conventional modern family occupation.

Members received clarification from the Legal Adviser that the proposed development would by virtue of its large footprint and resultant impact on the open nature and character of the Green Belt constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Legal advisor advised on the applicationoof Policy DC45 in the Development Plan and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. Reference was made to the constitutional guidance on applications contrary to the development plan which are subject to motions against the recommendation of officers. It was stressed that the constitutional provisions were in the form of guidance.

The Legal Adviser also confirmed that it was for the applicant to demonstrate a high level of very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the open character and appearance of the Green Belt.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused, however following a motion to approve on the following grounds:

·         Resultant building was not a disproportionate increase in comparison with extant approval.

·         The building reflected the size necessary to achieve a decent standard of conventional modern family occupation.

·         The proposal significantly enhanced the site's impact in streetscene, a main thoroughfare into the Borough.

·         Due to topography the proposal had limited impact on visual amenity and character.

·         The proposed development could be further screened by imposition of a Landscaping condition.

Members noted that the proposal would be liable for a Mayoral CIL payment of £3,220 and RESOLVED that it be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to revoke without compensation the previous permission, payment of the Council’s Legal fees for the agreement and Planning Obligation Monitoring Fee and subject to conditions based on those same as the previous permission and any other conditions considered necessary by Head of Regulatory Services including requirement for a domestic sprinkler system.

The vote for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission to the Head of Regulatory services subject to the foregoing was carried by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abstention.

Councillors Oddy, Bennett, Brace, Misir, Munday, Hawthorn, Ower and Osborne voted for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

Councillors McGeary and Durant voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.

Councillor Kelly abstained from voting.