Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

Mr Cavill addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/2114/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  The extra information requested by Members had been submitted and Members had been provided with a pack regarding the submitted information.  The excavated material would now be removed from the site and County Highways had been consulted and had raised no objections.

The Head referred to a recent appeal decision for a significantly smaller but similar scheme in Hertingfordbury.  The inspector had acknowledged the limited harm to the Green Belt but had dismissed the appeal due to policies regarding inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The Head stated that the proposed development was for a 570% increase and this was clearly inappropriate development.

Councillor D Oldridge referred to the previous scheme and the damage to the Green Belt.  He referred to the 8 months of 6 trucks taking material away from the site and felt that this would cause significant harm to the Green Belt.  He concluded that the harm clearly outweighed the benefits and the scheme should benefit a lot more people before it could be supported.

Councillor M Casey stated his initial sympathy for the application.  He confirmed that now he had seen the precedent set by the appeal decision and the size of the scheme versus the original house, the development was disproportionate and he could not support the scheme.

In response to comments from Councillors D Andrews and R Brunton, the Head confirmed that applications for extensions in the Green Belt can only be approved if they were not disproportionate and this scheme was clearly disproportionate.  The application should therefore be refused unless there were very special circumstances that outweighed the harm.

The Legal Services Manager confirmed to Councillor K Warnell that, as regards the setting of a precedent, a decision from an appeal inspector was clearly distinguishable from a decision from the Authority on a planning application.  The Head advised Councillor M Allen on the government guidance regarding the size and scale of a proposed development and whether this was disproportionate to the original dwelling.

The Head responded to a query from Councillor J Jones by stating that the 570% increase was not defined in the NPPF in terms of a specifically defined extension.  The issue was the size of the development rather than an increase in floor space.  The proposal was for a specific purpose and Members must consider what it could be used for in future.  The applicant’s choice to make the application was for personal circumstances and as such this was not a material planning consideration and did not constitute special circumstances in the Green Belt.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/2114/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.