Agenda item

[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 inappropriate development. Along with the NPPF the LPA used their own Green Belt Policies Woking DMP DPD (2016) policy DM13 which stated that as a general rule a replacement building that was no more than 20-40% larger than the one it replaced it would not usually be considered to be disproportionate. The Planning Officer commented that he would agree with the points made by Members about the basement if it was not externally visible. There were appeal decisions that stated you should count subterranean volume of a basement when it was visible from the street scene. It was unusual to have a ramp coming down to the basement in a residential property.

Councillor S Dorsett commented that he thought that ‘materially larger’ was open to interpretation and thought there was some disagreement whether the percentage volume of the basement should be included in the calculations. Councillor S Dorsett proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor J Brown to approve the application based on it being appropriate development in the Green Belt as it was not materially larger than the original property and did not reduce the openness of the Green Belt.

Councillor G Cosnahan, Ward Councillor, commented that this was an interesting road with large houses that have architectural interest. This was a large plot that could accommodate the proposal and the only view was from the front, which in his opinion was an interesting architectural view. Thomas James commented that the size of the plot was irrelevant from a planning point of view in regard to the property replacement size.

Some Members thought that the design fit in well with the street scene, did not think the application was materially larger and did not affect the openness of the Green Belt. There was considerable support from neighbours for this application.

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer what their view would be if the basement calculation was removed from the volume calculation. The Planning Officer stated that their view would not be changed as they still considered the proposal to be materially larger than the existing property. If approved this would set a precedent.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs J Brown, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, T Spenser and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  5

Against:                              None

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs T Aziz, S Oades and L M N Morales (Chairman)

                                 TOTAL:  3

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That the Planning permission be GRANTED, with authority delegated to the Development Management to set the appropriate conditions.