Issue - meetings

REFUSED

Members were notified in the presentation given by Planning that the application was for a part one/two storey side extension.

It was acknowledged that although the application was similar to an application previously approved in 2007, Policies, Plans, Guidance may have changed since, with greater emphasis now given on specific areas eg Green Belt development.

Planners felt that the proposed extension would still result in an increase in floor area of over 10% when compared to the original dwelling, thereby resulting in inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Additionally, the applicants had not provided details of any special circumstances for consideration.

An oral representation was then given by the Agent who confirmed that this was not a resubmission of the application that was previously refused and dismissed at appeal (23/00227/FULL6), as stated under Item 7.1.1 on page 30 of the Report. It is however a similar scheme to the application approved in 2007. The Agent stated that in his view, there had been no changes to the policies since 2007 that would now result in the application not being approved.

In response to a question from a Member, Planners confirmed that a lot of the wording may have been carried forward with Planning policies and legislation, (and the NPPF coming in in 2012). The wording regarding development in the Green Belt remained the same, with the emphasis on Green Belt protection now stronger than ever.

As with Agenda Item 4.1, Ward Member, Councillor Dr Gupta, was due to attend the meeting to speak in support of the application but had sent his apologies that he was unable to attend. Cllr Dr Gupta had provided a statement which had been circulated to Members and Officers prior to the meeting, and it was also read out by the Chairman.

Ward Councillor and Committee Member, Councillor Laidlaw, then confirmed to Members that he appreciated this was a difficult case to consider with understandable concerns for the Green Belt. However, he couldn’t see that the plan would have a significant detrimental effect on the Green Belt or neighbours and would be inclined to support the application.

Some Members voiced the opinion that consistency was important, with the need to follow and implement Green Belt policy and guidance of great importance. Attention was also drawn to the Appeal Inspector’s statement on page 35 of the Report, with the need to give the comments made serious consideration.

A motion for approval was then voted on but was not carried.

Members having considered the Report, objections and representations RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended for the reasons set out in the Report.