Agenda item

Recommendation for Refusal

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/18/2367/HH, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.

The Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the application and detailed the relevant planning history.  Members were advised that the site was located in the green belt and where there was an identified harm this had to be given substantial weight in decision making.  Members had to consider the size and scale of the proposed development and whether this was disproportionate.

The Head referred to paragraphs 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the report and advised that extensions over and above a 100% increase in the size of a property were very much in the range of a disproportionate increase and was therefore inappropriate development in the green belt.  Members had to consider whether there were any benefits to which weight could be assigned to clearly outweigh the harm.

The Head reminded Members that there were no public benefits to which the Committee could assign any weight and there were no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm.  Officers had therefore recommended the application for refusal of planning permission.

Councillor M Allen commented on permitted development rights regarding the rear extension in terms of whether this would be approved.  He also sought clarification in terms of whether the 157% increase was over and above the property as it stands today or over and above the property as it was first constructed.

Councillor R Brunton commented on the green belt policies with particular reference to the loss of openness.  He referred to a comment by the Officer in the report that the extensions would not be overbearing and did not extend beyond the rear building line.  He felt that the houses to either side of this dwelling were of sufficient size for the extensions to be not overbearing in nature.

Councillor Brunton believed that it was not appropriate in this case to be so rigid in the application of green belt policy.  He concluded that he would not be supporting the recommendation for refusal as the proposed extensions were no higher or wider than the existing neighbouring properties and he felt the harm was marginal in this case.

Councillor P Boylan stated that this property was relatively small compared to other properties around it and any increase in percentage size would appear large in relation to surrounding properties.

Following a number of other comments from Members, the Head reminded the Committee that green belt was one of the most consistently applied set of policies and one of the most long standing policy positions.  Members should ensure consistency in the application of green belt policy due to the significant number of properties in East Herts that were located in the green belt.

The Head advised that the fact that an inappropriate development was located in the Green Belt was harmful in itself regardless of the scale or design of what was proposed.   Members were reminded that national policy dictated that this must be given substantial harmful weight in decision making.  This position was also reflected in the Council’s very recently adopted District Plan policy.

The Head referred to other harm and the commentary in the report in respect of openness.  Members were advised that the application would result in new built form around the rear and the side of the house and there proposed increases in both height and the forward elevation.

The Head emphasised that even if no one could see the proposed development, this would still be considered harmful on openness.  The matters raised by Members were compliant in other policy areas but were not matters to which positive weight could be applied in policy terms on this application.

Members were reminded that permitted development rights had been significantly relaxed in recent years and householders could now add quite significant extensions without having to apply for planning permission.  The rules around this were complicated and detailed matters in this area would have to be addressed outside of the meeting.

Councillor M Allen proposed and Councillor J Jones seconded, a motion that in respect of applications 3/18/2367/HH, the Committee support the recommendation for refusal, subject to the reasons detailed in the report submitted.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee supported the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/18/2367/HH, planning permission be refused, for the reasons detailed in the report submitted.