Issue - meetings

[NOTE: The Planning Officer informed the Committee that an additional representation had been received from a local neighbour which reiterated support for the application. This did not change the Planning Officers view on the application.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a replacement two-storey dwelling plus basement level following demolition of existing dwelling.

Councillor A Azad, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application and disagreed with the Planning Officers conclusion that the proposal was materially larger than existing dwelling, caused harmful loss of openness to, and was inappropriate development in, the Green Belt. The Councillor asked that the Committee consider the floor area, volume and footprint of the proposed application and stated that the area calculations submitted in report were different from those submitted in the applicant’s survey. Councillor A Azad suggested that the Planning Officer underestimated the existing building and exaggerated the proposed building. The applicant’s figures suggested that would be a 31% increase in footprint, not 46% as stated in report. Councillor A Azad also queried why the precedence for refusal used by Planning Officer was based on a case in Dorset. Councillor A Azad felt that the openness of the Green Belt was preserved by the application, if not enhanced. The Councillor stated that the contemporary design was consistent with the context within the plot, it was an energy efficient/environmentally friendly property. Councillor A Azad thought that the inclusion of the basement accommodation did not contribute to bulk or massing and alleviated the need for further structures on the site whilst preserving the openness of the Green Belt.

The Planning Officer acknowledged that there was some difference between the calculations within the report and those of the applicant, which was not unusual with Green Belt applications. The applicant had not included the basement in their calculations and the Planning Officer had. The Planning Officer considered the basement to be very conspicuous due to the large ramp that accessed it and thought that it should therefore be included. The assessment of impact on the Green Belt was not a simply a volumetric exercise and as set out in the report, many factors considered together resulted in the Planning Officers conclusion that the application was materially larger than the existing dwelling and could cause harmful loss of openness and inappropriate development in Green Belt. With regards to the Dorset case sited in the report, the Planning Officer explained that this was considered a seminal piece of case law regarding Green Belt applications.

The Planning Officer stated that here had been no specific information submitted regarding the need for the batteries in the basement and he thought that this argument would have limited weight.

Some Members of the Committee raised questions about the definition of ‘materially larger’ and the percentage volume of the basement in relation to the whole development.

Following a further query regarding the basement the Planning Officer referred to paragraph 3 of the report which set out what the NPPF considered appropriate and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6