Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted with delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to set the required conditions and Section 106 agreement if appropriate.  

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 14 December 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 application was for a replacement dwelling on the site which was in a countryside setting.  The main issues for consideration were the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.  It was felt that the massing of the development would have an increased detrimental impact and therefore the recommendation was for refusal of the application.  The total floorspace was 140 square metres including the extensions and the proposal was for 354 square metres excluding the attached garage and three storey element of the proposal.  This would result in an increase of 153% over the original dwelling.  Application 051526 for the demolition of rear areas of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey extension to the side and rear had been granted in March 2014 which amounted to a 121% increase.  An application for the erection of a replacement dwelling had been refused in June 2015.  The officer felt that this application would be out of scale with existing properties in the area and there were no other dwellings of the scale and massing of this proposal. 

            The officer explained that the Local Member, Councillor David Roney, in his consultation response had indicated that the new dwelling was to meet the needs of a disabled person but there had been no mention in the application of a medical need for a design of this scale.  It was felt that there was scope to adapt the property without the scale of development proposed. 

            Mr. R. Gratton, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the proposal would meet the needs of the applicant and the demolition of the dwelling and erection of a new property had been discussed with the planning officer who had indicated that refusal of the application was proposed because it was out of scale and character with the area.  The design was redrafted and following lengthy negotiations, it was felt that the application was deemed to be acceptable.  Mr. Gratton referred to Policy HSG6 and commented that existing permitted development rights had not been removed.  The floor space for the proposed dwelling was very similar to that of the existing property but was a better design for the applicant.           

            The Local Member, Councillor David Roney, proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Following advice from the Housing & Planning Solicitor Councillor Roney and Councillor Mike Peers, as proposer and seconder respectively, agreed to add that delegated powers be granted to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to include appropriate conditions and a Section 106 obligation, if such an obligation was appropriate..    

             Councillor Roney said that all of the properties in the area were of different designs and this dwelling had been granted planning permission to extend the rear area and erect a new two storey extension which would result in a property the same size as this proposal.  The application had been unanimously accepted by Mostyn Community Council and the new house would provide bigger rooms and wider doorways which would meet the needs of the applicant.  The officer had referred to the massing of the development and the impact on the area but Councillor Roney said that the area was industrial in nature and had the railway line running behind the house.  The family had been unable to find an alternative suitable family home and therefore wanted to build a home more suited to their needs.  There had been mention of a snooker room with the property but this was an area where a lift would be located to allow the applicant to access the rest of the house when he was no longer able to walk.  Councillor Roney felt that as there had been no objections to the application, that it should be approved. 

            Councillor Mike Peers disagreed with the comments that the massing of the property would cause a significant detrimental impact on the area and said that the plans for this application was very similar to the existing dwelling.  He felt that it was a matter of opinion as to whether the dwelling would be out of scale and character with the area.  The site was a large plot and would allow the applicant the opportunity to have a property that was fit for purpose and have large enough rooms for an improved quality of life. 

            In referring to the comments of the Head of Public Protection, Councillor Richard Lloyd queried what the suggested condition would be.  The officer indicated that it would be in connection with replacing most of the windows because of the noise from the traffic on the road.  It was not included as a condition in the report as the application was recommended for refusal. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the site visit where Members had been able to see that all of the houses in the area were individual and unique.  He referred to policy which indicated that a guideline increase of 50% was allowable in a rural setting but this was an increase of 153% which was contrary to policy.  The harm in permitting this application was the precedent that it would set for future applications.  Councillor Bithell referred to the site history and queried the reason for the refusal of application 053514 in June 2015 and whether the proposal was the same as for this application.  Councillor Derek Butler said that approval had already been given to increase the footprint to 121% and added that Councillor Bithell had put forward a balanced argument.  He concurred that there was a mix of housing in the area but spoke of the importance of planning principle and setting a precedent. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that this was a building in the open countryside and that the extending the footprint by nearly 400% in relation to the original dwelling was unacceptable.  He concurred with the earlier comments about setting a precedent if this application was approved.  He referred to an application at the previous meeting for a two storey extension which had been permitted but was within the settlement boundary so the increase in size was not considered; it could therefore not be compared to this application.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the mistakes had already been made in permitting the increases of 121% and therefore the further extension by 32% was considered to be finely balanced and could not be considered to have a significant detrimental impact.  Councillor Roberts indicated that policy guidelines related to increases compared to the original dwelling, not the original plus extensions so on that basis the increase on this proposal was nearly 400% not 150%. 

            In response to Councillor Bithell’s query about the refusal of application 053514, the officer confirmed that it was not for the same scheme as this proposal and that the application had been dealt with by delegated powers.  The application was for a replacement dwelling with a footprint of 200% more than the original and was refused because of its significant impact on the area. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager referred to the extensions already permitted but explained that as these were mainly to the rear of the property, they did not have a detrimental impact on the overall character of the area.  He added that the applicant could also top up these extensions with permitted development rights.  The harm that allowing the proposal would bring was the precedent it would set for future applications.  The Planning Strategy Manager advised Members that a four bed detached property was usually about 150 square metres so this proposal would produce a dwelling that was more than two times the size of a four bed house.  He added that he had not heard any reasons to suggest why the original property could not be adapted to make it suitable for the family’s needs. 

            In summing up, Councillor Roney said that the extensions were not solely to the rear as some were to the side of the property and the original 1930s dwelling was difficult to alter.  This application had been submitted to make the house fit for purpose for a disabled person and Councillor Roney felt that as extensions totalling 121% had already been granted by officers, this application for an additional increase of 32% should be permitted. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application with delegated authority to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to set up the required conditions and Section 106 agreement if appropriate was CARRIED.  

            Councillor Lloyd queried whether the condition referred to by the Head of Public Protection would be included.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that as the setting of conditions had been delegated to him, he would take this request into account. 

RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted with delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to set the required conditions and Section 106 agreement if appropriate.