Agenda item

The Committee considered a retrospective application for installation of external  timber cladding and replacement of existing metal windows with UPVC windows to an existing dwelling.

The Committee was advised that the dwelling had originally been a semi-detached property attached to No.2 Lees Farm Cottages.  However the neighbouring dwelling has been demolished and rebuilt as a detached property as part of the partial implementation of planning permission which existed to redevelop the cottages.  As a result of the demolition of the attached neighbour and other issues within the property, the Council’s Housing Standards Team had issued the owner and landlord of the property with an ‘Improvement Notice’ under the Housing Act (2004) requiring the landlord to make a number of improvements to the property.  These had included the installation of external wall insulation and replacement windows.

The Committee noted that the Landlord had undertaken the work despite the Improvement Notice Order having stipulated that any works, especially external works, had to have been agreed with the Planning Department before being carried out.  Councillor Chrystie raised concerns over the visual impact of the cladding on the character of the property as well as surrounding areas, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan (2016).  and considered the work unacceptable in the Green Belt.  Councillor Chrystie added that the windows were out-of-character with the dwelling and surrounding area.

The Officer stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defined appropriate development in the Green Belt as including the extension or alteration of a building provided that did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.  The proposal did not involve extensions or result in an uplift in bulk or volume and therefore did not impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  The weatherboarding was considered visually acceptable to the rural context of the proposal site and was considered to preserve the character of the Green Belt.  In view of the questions around the Neighbourhood Policy, the Committee Members were reminded that the following planning policies were relevant:

Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan (2016):

BE1 - Maintaining the Character of the Village

BE3 - Spatial Character

OS1 – Community Character

OS4 - Biodiversity

Councillor Chrystie proposed and Councillor Boote seconded a proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of conflict with policy BE1 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan (2016) as well as the breach of Green Belt Rules. 

The Committee expressed concern over the colour of the replacement windows, noting that other properties in the surrounding area with a similar cladding did not have white windows and that a variety of colours in frames was commonly available.  The Officer stated that the replacement windows were considered to have an acceptable impact on the character of the host building and surrounding area.  Such windows would not normally have required planning permission, though in this case the new windows were materially different to the original ones and were therefore subject to planning legislation.

Chris Dale, Development Manager advised the Committee that a split decision would be inappropriate..  Furthermore, if the Committee was minded to refuse the application, consideration would have to be given to appropriate enforcement action. 

Chris Dale referred to the comments in respect of the impact on the Green Belt and drew attention to the provisions within the new NPPF which stated that "extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building is appropriate development in the green belt".  Chris Dale explained that impact on the Green Belt would therefore not be an appropriate reason for refusal which could be sustained in an appeal.

The Committee was referred to the amendment before them, namely to refuse the application on the grounds that the materials used (cladding and windows) would result in a visually discordant appearance contrary to Policy BE1 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan.   In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a vote should be taken on the motion above.  The names of those voting for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                      Councillors T Aziz, A Boote, G Chrystie and M Whitehand.

                                      Total in favour: 4

Against:                         Councillors I Eastwood and N Martin.

                                      Total against: 2

Present not voting:        Councillors S Ashall, G Cundy (Chairman) and L Morales.

                                      Total present not voting: 3

The application was therefore refused by 4 votes to 2.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused and formal enforcement proceedings be authorised with a compliance period of six months.