Agenda item

Further to minute 203 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th April 2012, where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse an application for a detached garage with first floor office, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer

(report attached)

  Further to minute 203 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 19^th April 2012 where Panel resolved not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse an application for a detached garage with first floor office which was sited in the Green Belt, Members considered a further report.  Appended to the report was the previous report considered by Panel

  Officers presented the report which outlined Green Belt Policy and recent decisions made by the Inspector and Panel on applications within the Green Belt, for Members’ consideration.  If minded to approve the application, a list of suggested conditions to be attached to an approval were also included

  Members were informed that the recent revised local Green Belt Policy allowed for increases up to 30%; national planning policy whilst not giving an exact figure, referred to disproportionate additions amounting to inappropriate development.  If approved, the application being considered when taking into account previous additions would result in a 133% increase in the footprint of the original building

As a way forward, Members could consider whether the proposal was a disproportionate addition and if it was concluded that it was inappropriate development, whether any very special circumstances applied in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.  Officers could also be asked to discuss the proposals further with the applicant to see if a form of development could be agreed which would not have such a significant effect on the Green Belt

The Panel considered how to proceed and commented on the following matters:

·  that whilst understanding the points made by Officers, the application had been discussed fully at the last meeting and it was decided not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application

·  that the Green Belt policy which had been considered by all three Plans Panels should be adhered to; that a dangerous precedent could be set if the application was granted against policy and the difficulty in defending that policy in the future

·  that by opting for further negotiations with the applicant, Panel was agreeing that the principle of development was acceptable, with concerns about this

·  that the consequences of inappropriate development in the Green Belt could be seen in parts of the city and there was a need to uphold Green Belt policy

·  the difficult situation which had arisen and that all points of view could be understood

In terms of whether allowing the application would set a precedent, the Panel’s legal adviser was asked to comment and stated that where precedent was relied on a mere fear or generalised concern of a precedent being set was not enough; that the planning consequences of the decision had to be identified and  that this applied where a departure from policy was involved.  The consequences in this case could be that if planning permission was granted, whilst each application would be considered on its merits it could well be more difficult to resist further applications of this nature coming forward. The legal adviser also confirmed that it was right for Panel to approach the application in the way outlined in the officer presentation, by first of all considering whether the proposal constituted inappropriate development and if so whether there were any very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development.

  Proposals to both grant and refuse planning permission were made and seconded

  RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reason:

  The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed detached outbuilding by virtue of its overall height, size, scale and siting, coupled with the existing extensions to the dwelling, represents a disproportionate addition to the dwelling which would also harm the openness and character of the Green Belt and which is therefore considered to be inappropriate development.  Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and as no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, the proposal is considered contrary to the aims and intentions of policy N33 of the Unitary Development Plan Review (2006), policy HDG3 of the Draft Householder Design Guide as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework