Replacement dwelling and continued temporary use of existing outbuilding as full residential accommodation.  (Alternative siting of approved dwelling under CE2002/1868/F).

Replacement dwelling and continued temporary use of existing outbuilding as full residential accommodation.  (Alternative siting of approved dwelling under CE2002/1868/F).

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             A letter of objection had been received from Mr. P. Foster of Sunnyside and the main points were outlined.

§             A letter had been received from the applicant’s agent stating that his clients were happy to provide a legal agreement rescinding their existing permission if this planning permission was approved.

§             Comments had been received from the Environmental Health Officer stating that the noise levels at the proposed site were unlikely to be materially different to the approved site.

§             Comments had been received from the Landscape Officer stating that the proposal would reduce the landscape quality of the area and recommended refusal of the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Gregory spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DW Greenow sympathised with the position of the applicant and, subject to appropriate landscaping and screening, felt that there would be minimal impact on the landscape character of the area.  He commented on the apparent blight caused by allocation of land south of the railway line as a possible passenger railway station and park and ride area in the UDP.  It was noted that no objections had been raised by the Traffic Manager, Lugwardine Parish Council or Withington Parish Council.  Given these considerations, he felt that the application should be supported.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Sub-Committee that, if Members were minded to approve the application for the replacement dwelling, consideration needed to be given to measures to ensure that the building currently occupied by the applicant was removed.  It was reported that the applicant stated that the existing accommodation would be ‘ancillary’ to the new dwelling.  However, the footprint of the existing accommodation was larger than the proposed new dwelling, contained all the normal facilities associated with an independent dwelling, and the distance between buildings seemingly contradicted the notion of ancillary use.  Therefore, it was recommended that a Section 106 Agreement be required to ensure the demolition of the existing accommodation.

A number of Members supported the views of the Local Ward Member and, although disappointed about the distance from the approved location, felt that the replacement dwelling should be permitted.  However, it was felt that the existing accommodation was too far away from the proposed replacement dwelling to be considered ancillary and should be removed.  There was some discussion about how this could be progressed but it was felt that the exact wording regarding the removal of the existing accommodation should be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Chairman and the Local Ward Member, to ensure that the most secure method of compliance was taken.

Some Members noted that the application was contrary to a number of adopted policies and felt that it could set a precedent for similar developments in the open countryside.

The Development Control Manager advised that there was a presumption against new residential development within open countryside but one exception was the replacement of an existing dwelling with established residential use rights.  However, the policy required that the replacement dwelling should be on the same site as the existing building and this was not the case with the scheme before the Sub-Committee.  Furthermore, it was considered that the development would detract from the landscape character of the area.  He noted that, whilst some useful suggestions had been made about mitigating the policy objections through the removal of existing buildings and appropriate landscaping, an assessment had to be made as to whether the crucial policy considerations had been addressed.

RESOLVED:            That

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application, subject to the condition listed below, (and to any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services), provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            A S106 Agreement or other appropriate mechanism to enable the rescinding of the extant permission for a replacement dwelling and the demolition of the existing annex accommodation.

(ii)         If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above and any other conditions deemed reasonable and necessary by Officers

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.  Councillor Hubbard asked that Members be kept informed of progress as it was an interesting case study.]