Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

The Chairman noted the value of the site inspection that had been held.

The Central Team Leader provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         A response had been received from Ballingham, Bolstone and Hentland Group Parish Council.  This stated that although there would be a breach of Policy H18 the application was supported given: the current property was small, there would not be a significant visual impact, the circumstances of the applicant and in the future the property would be suitable for a family.

·         A letter had been received from the applicant.  This considered that the report was misleading with reference to the views of Holme Lacy Parish Council, points out that there was support from the Parish Councils of Bolstone, Ballingham, Hentland, Hoarwithy and Holme Lacy and other letters of support.  It also referred to the processing of this and an earlier application, the negotiations involved and e-mail correspondence between her, her agent and Officers.

The Central Team Leader advised that:

§         The Report was clear with regard to the response from Holme Lacy Parish Council (paragraph 5.2).  It reported their view on the current scheme and also reported their view on the scheme as originally submitted.

§         There was an error in the Report, at paragraph 6.3, which stated that the floor area as proposed was in the order of 160 sq m.  This was not correct, the figure should be 180 sq m.

Councillor PJ Edwards sympathised with the situation of the applicant but, noting the humble origins and idyllic position of the cottage, considered that the proposed extension would dominate the original building and he endorsed the recommendation of refusal by officers.

Councillor AT Oliver noted the purpose of planning policies, the need for fairness and consistency, that the proposal did not comply with UDP Policy H18, and the need to retain smaller dwellings in rural areas for persons of modest means.

The Chairman said that each application had to be considered on its own merits and noted that the cottage was small and did not necessarily meet today’s standards for suitable accommodation.

Councillor SJ Robertson said that the site inspection had been worthwhile and, whilst it was a hard decision to reach given the circumstances, the setting and surroundings of the cottage had to be protected.

Councillor DW Greenow commented on: the extensive paperwork circulated by the applicant detailing the discussions and negotiations with officers about the proposal; the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family and the need for wide and level access throughout the property; the alterations made to proposed materials to satisfy requirements; the cottage was very small to start off with and the extension would be adequate for the living conditions and for the care of the family concerned; and the level of support in the community.  Given these considerations and the exceptional circumstances, Councillor Greenow felt that the application should be approved.

Councillor RI Matthews noted attempts to reach a suitable compromise and that both local parish councils supported the proposal.  He felt that, although rather large, an extension could be supported on balance.

Councillor DB Wilcox commented that different solutions had been discussed, involving various architects and officers.  He sympathised with the recommendation by officers given the policy constraints and the scale of the proposed extension; he added that an extension of no more than 75% might ensure that the cottage remained the dominant feature.  He noted the efforts made by the applicant to adjust the design and said that the visual impact of the proposal would be minimised by the orientation of the extension.  Given that no objections had been received from local residents and the personal circumstances identified, Councillor Wilcox considered that the proposal would not offend anybody and would serve a useful purpose.

Councillor MAF Hubbard said that the attractive appearance of the area relied on policies to maintain it and exceptions eroded the character of such sensitive locations.  He also commented on the need to retain small cottages in the countryside.

The Legal Practice Manager highlighted the following issues: planning policies provided predictability, commonality and uniformity which gave applicants for planning permission a reasonable idea about the way in which particular proposals would be dealt with; the Council’s planning policies were well known; each application had to be considered on its own merits; that the acquisition of property in anticipation of gaining approval for further development, contrary to known policy, might be considered speculative; and it was for the Sub-Committee to determine whether a particular proposal could be considered to meet exception requirements in planning terms.

Councillors KS Guthrie commented on the need to preserve the integrity of the cottage and ensure that any extension did not dominate the original building.

Councillor NL Vaughan felt that there was a need for compromise between strict interpretation of planning policies and social responsibility.

The Central Team Leader reported that planning policy guidance indicated that personal circumstances should only rarely be taken into account and it was the professional view of officers that an exception could not be made in this case in view of the adopted policies.

A motion to refuse the application received an equal number of votes and the Chairman used the casting vote to defeat that motion.

A motion to approve the application was also defeated.

Councillor Wilcox proposed that, as both motions had failed, the application be deferred for further negotiations.  He noted that the principal issue was the size of the proposed extension and suggested that officers provide the applicant with an indication of what scale might be acceptable in order to keep the present cottage as the dominant feature; Councillor Wilcox suggested not more than 75% add on.

Councillor Edwards commented that it was for the applicant and the applicant’s advisors to look at the application again, to take due note of the concerns expressed about the proposed size of the extension, and to return with a more realistic submission; he added that the Sub-Committee was not in a position to write proposals for developers.

The Central Team Leader advised that he was happy to negotiate further but commented that there had been many discussions and exchanges of correspondence with the applicant in an attempt to address the policy considerations but, to date, none of the adjustments had resulted in a suitable reduction in size.  He added that a reduction, which would meet the policy constraint, might not suit the particular needs of the applicant.

In response to comments and questions about the defeated motions, the Legal Practice Manager clarified that the position was that no substantive motion had yet been passed.  He noted that the motion to refuse planning permission had been defeated and that the motion to grant planning permission had also been defeated. It was open to any Member to propose a new substantive motion and that as deferral had now been proposed, a vote should be taken accordingly.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCE2008/1533/F be deferred for further negotiations.