Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 22 June 2015.  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 site had been the subject of a number of applications, with the two most recent applications being dismissed on appeal or refused.         

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the application had been refused twice and dismissed on appeal and even though the height had been reduced by one metre, the proposal was still incongruous.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred and indicated that the appeal Inspector had agreed with the decision to refuse the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor Helen Brown, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the applicant had submitted amended plans which reduced the height by one metre and added that she did not consider the development to be detrimental to the streetscene.  No objections had been received from the neighbours or Hawarden Community Council.  She explained that the applicant wanted to extend his property for himself and his family and asked Members to consider the different type of properties in the area and approve the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor George Hardcastle, said that he had lived in the area for a number of years and commented on the variety of properties in Aston Park and some of the extensions to properties in the area.  He felt that the application should be approved as he did not feel that it looked out of place and the proposal had been reduced by one metre from the original application.  He asked to committee to consider approving the application. 

            Councillor Alison Halford suggested that the comments of the Local Members should be taken into account and said that it appeared that the officer had decided that they did not like the proposal because of the height.  She did not think that the Inspector’s decision on the previous application should be considered when the applicant had reduced the height for this proposal.  Councillor Halford added that it was unfair to do so as it was not known what the Inspector’s decision would be if this application was refused and went to appeal.  She also said that the application was for an affordable home.   

            In response, the Development Manager said that the recommendation in the report was based on experience of similar proposals which officers faced on a regular basis.  A consistent approach had been taken in the recommendation of refusal and he asked the Committee to also be consistent in their decision.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that all reports were in the name of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd concurred with the earlier comments that there were a variety of property styles in the area and suggested that the proposed amendments to the dwelling were appropriate.  Councillor Ray Hughes queried if the Inspector had recommended a reduction in height of 1 metre, Councillor Helen Brown said that the appeal Inspector had indicated that the original proposal for the dwelling was too high and therefore the applicant had reduced the height by one metre. 

            In referring to paragraph 7.05 of the report, Councillor Mike Peers said that the Inspector had made particular reference to the massing of the roof as a result of the proposals.  However, Councillor Peers felt that the extension to one of the neighbouring properties had more of an impact on the streetscene than what was proposed in this application.  He queried what the differences were between the proposed extension to this property and the neighbouring property and whether the resultant massing compared to what was currently in place was the reason for the recommendation of refusal.  In response, the officer commented on the extensions to other properties in the area and explained that permitted development rights had changed since those extensions were permitted and the criteria was now based on the impact on the streetscene.  He referred to appeals which the Council had been successful in defending in the last five years for similar proposals and advised that both the height of the roof and the overall massing were areas of concern.  He added that the massing had been increased and the roof was higher than the two adjacent properties. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager acknowledged the comments of the Local Members but indicated that in planning policy terms, there needed to be exceptional circumstances for the proposal to be approved, but there were none on this application.  He agreed that a decision of an appeal Inspector was not known on this application but he added that to say that the proposal would not do any harm was not a sound planning reason to approve the application.  On the issue of whether the proposal was for an affordable home, the Planning Strategy Manager said that details of the affordability element had not been provided and it did not necessarily mean that the application should be approved if it was affordable.  The scale and massing of the proposal were the same as on the previous application which was refused.  He referred to the impact on the streetscene of other extensions and in highlighting paragraph 7.01 indicated that the proposal was for more than the inclusion of a dormer window. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell referred to the earlier comments by Councillor Halford about it being the officer’s decision and reminded Members that the officers were professionals who should be given the respect that they deserved.  The decision made by officers had been based on local and national policy and Councillor Bithell asked the Committee to listen to the advice provided.  He referred to the large and varied extensions to other properties that had been mentioned earlier and said that this may be because applications were approved against planning policy.  He said that the applicant could appeal the decision if it was refused by the Committee at this meeting and if the Inspector felt that the incorrect decision had been reached, then it could be overturned.  Councillor Bithell concluded that Members should abide by the officer recommendation and uphold the Council’s policies by refusing the application.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).