Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Mrs Bird addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/2122/FP, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor M Carver, as the local ward Member, stated that he hoped Members had viewed the site.  He highlighted the applicant’s reasons for seeking permission for a relatively small extension and why this was so important.  He also referred to a number of precedents for extensions of a similar size in what was a relatively small hamlet.

Councillor Carver emphasised that that the applicant had reduced the size of the proposed development and had improved the design to the point where the proposed development complemented the existing very small property and the street scene.

Councillor Carver stated that the size of the property was so small that percentage statistics regarding the size of the proposed extension should not really apply.  He pointed out that the use of the word disproportionate by the appeal inspector was a subjective judgement and Members should place a significant emphasis on the end result of this application.

Councillor Carver concluded that the key issue was whether the final result was overbearing or would adversely affect the surrounding area or impact on the conservation area.  He argued that no harm would be caused and he urged the Committee to support the application as the design was in keeping with the existing dwelling.

The Director referred to an additional letter of objection that had been summarised in the additional representations summary.  Members were reminded of the importance of the site history referred to by Councillor Carver.

The Director highlighted the key material consideration of the 2012 appeal decision.  Members were advised that the changes proposed by this latest application had not sufficiently overcome the concerns of the inspector.  Officers therefore considered that the application would lead to a disproportionate increase in the bulk and size of the original building which would adversely affect the character and openness of the Rural Area.

Councillor M Newman emphasised that the Officer’s view that the proposed development would be detrimental to the openness and rural character of the surrounding conservation area was a very subjective judgement.  He stated that all development had an impact and he felt that the impact would be to a reasonable level in this case.

Councillor D Andrews commented that he did not feel that this application was inappropriate and he was minded to support it.  Councillor P Moore stated she had visited the site and had approached this application with an open mind.  She referred to paragraph 7.9 of the report and the fact that the current proposal would double the original floor area of the dwelling.  She concluded that the views of the local ward Member had broadened her vision of this application.

Councillor N Symonds stated that she knew the cottage and the area and opposite the cottages were quite large social housing units that were owned by South Anglia.  She commented that she did not have a problem with the proposed development as Pine Cottage was small and was tucked away up a small lane.

Councillor Moore agreed that this property was tucked away in that it was located on a small lane and was amongst the last dwellings that you came too.  She concluded that she would be supporting this application as she understood why the applicant was seeking more space as this was a very small property.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had a lot of sympathy with an occupier who wished to live in a house for a long time.  He stressed however, that an owner of a property in a conservation area could not always expect to be permitted to extend.

Councillor G Jones agreed with the Officer’s recommendation in that he felt there was symmetry between Pine Cottage and three nearby cottages that would be detrimentally altered by the proposed development.  He concluded that the appeal decision made it difficult to reach a decision that was contrary to the views of the inspector.

The Director reminded Members of the Council’s policy which sought to maintain a balance of smaller units across the District.  Members were also advised that a development that sought to double the size of a property would clearly have an impact and the policy sought to restrict extensions to a more modest scale.

The Director reminded the Committee that where there was a previous appeal decision Members must clearly articulate why they now felt able to take a decision contrary to the inspector’s views.

Councillor M Newman proposed and Councillor D Andrews seconded, a motion that application 3/14/2122/FP be granted on the grounds that the proposed development would not adversely affect the openness of the rural area and would not harm the character and appearance of the Green Tye Conservation Area.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/2122/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.        Three Time Limit (1T12)

2.        Approved Plans (2E10) – Location plan, p01a, p02a, p03a, e01, e02, e03, e04.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

East Herts Council has considered the applicant’s proposal in a positive and proactive manner with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (Minerals Local Plan, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2012 and the ’saved’ policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007); the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the limited harm to the character and appearance of the Rural Area, is that permission should be granted.