Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 March 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the adjacent property to the site had been the subject of a previous extension and that permitted development rights had been removed to prevent any further development. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposed detached building which was to be constructed of timber cladding and slate roof would not dominate the dwelling or adversely affect the visual amenity of the area, nor have any adverse impact upon the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property, as reported in paragraphs 7.07 and 7.08 respectively.  Councillor Thomas said the principle of building the garage was not in dispute, but the issue was about its size.  He referred to an application for a detached garage of similar size in Nannerch which had been permitted and queried why that had been approved when this application was recommended for refusal. 

            In referring to the use of the building for housing cars and tools to keep them safe, Councillor Alison Halford queried why it was reported in the conclusion of the report that the proposal was out of scale with the dwelling and referred to the site visit where the dwelling could not be viewed from the highway as Members left the site.  In response, the officer said that the proposal was for the garage to be a similar size to a house and that a building to provide security did not need to be of the scale requested.  He reminded Members that permitted development rights were withdrawn when the barn was converted and approval of the application would be against Council policy. 

            Councillor Derek Butler said that the scale of the building was illustrated by the drawing which was displayed: it was the same size as a house.  He felt it was a holiday home in the making.  It was significant that the permitted development rights removed by the previous permission had never been reinstated.

            Councillor Mike Peers felt that there was little in the report about what the harm would be if the development was allowed.  The garage was to be sited some way from the main dwelling, and he felt that it would not impact on neighbours nor be seen from the highway.  He added that the proposal would complement the site and as there was sufficient space for it to be sited, should be approved.  Councillors Richard Lloyd and Richard Jones felt that the detached garage block was in keeping with the original building and as no objections had been received, Councillor Lloyd concurred that the application should be approved. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that policy HSG7 permitted developments in the countryside if they were of traditional character or architectural merit.  The original application had been approved but permitted development rights had been removed to protect the character of the original converted barn.  It was reported in paragraph 7.09 that negotiations had taken place with the applicant seeking a simpler, smaller, building which might be acceptable in design terms but the applicant wanted to seek determination of this application as it stood.  The officer explained that the site that Councillor Thomas had earlier referred to in Nannerch was for a dwelling in its own right and therefore had permitted development rights and, as it was not a barn conversion, it could not be compared to this application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that, due to its scale, this proposal would detrimentally impact upon the existing dwelling, and adversely affect the character of the area.  He reminded Members that the application should not be approved just because it could not be seen from elsewhere. 

            In summing up, Councillor Thomas said that the applicant had agreed to construct the buildings in any material and added that a building made of wood would blend into the surrounding area in time.  In response to a query from Councillor Peers about which policies the application did not comply with, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the policies were HSG12 and GEN 1. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application against officer recommendation was CARRIED.  The Principal Solicitor said that the resolution would reflect that delegated powers would be given to the Head of Planning to determine appropriate conditions.            

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.