Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this was a revised scheme to the previous application reference 050430 which was refused by Committee in July 2013.  The recommendation of refusal of this application was on the grounds of scale and the impact on the dwelling.

            Mr. M. Price, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the extension to the dwelling, that he and his family had lived in for ten years, was required to allow extra space following the birth of their baby daughter.  There were three houses in the complex and the others had been extended.  The principle of development had been accepted and permission for a single storey extension had been granted in 2002 but this had now lapsed.  He felt that the revised proposal complied with planning policy and the 38% increase in the floorspace was below the recommended guideline of 50%.  Mr. Price said that the proposal was respectful of the existing building and he commented on the slope of the land which was the reason for the proposed height of the building, which had been reduced since the refusal of the previous application.  He indicated that there had not been any objections to the application and it would not affect anyone as it could not be seen.  In conclusion, Mr. Price said that the height of the proposal had been reduced and the application complied with the policy guidelines for extensions to dwellings and he therefore requested that the application be approved.   

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She concurred that the proposal complied with policy and reminded Members that the applicant had reduced the ridge height and had complied with the guidelines for extensions to dwellings.  She said that refusal of this application with a 38% increase when an earlier application for a much larger increase in footprint had been reported for approval was not consistent.  Councillor Halford asked for clarification on paragraph 2.01 and said that the applicant had worked hard on the application including the suggestion to remove the balcony from the proposal. 

            Councillor Richard Jones concurred and said that this application was preferable to the earlier proposal which had been refused.  The applicant had tried his best and the materials suggested would blend into the countryside and Councillor Jones felt that the proposal was acceptable.  Councillor Derek Butler felt that approval of the application would go against the Council’s policies and would set a precedent.  He said that the application did not comply with policy and the scale of the dwelling needed addressing.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that the original building was of historic and architectural merit and worthy of retention.  He said that there would have been certain constraints on the alterations that could be carried out on the building such as scale and size and these should be considered by applicants before submission of applications for alterations.  He said that the application that Councillor Halford was referring to was for a replacement dwelling in a settlement and could not be compared with this application.  Councillor Bithell accepted that there had been a change in family circumstances but suggested that this could be overcome by other means rather than destroying a building that was worthy of retention.  He queried what was meant by the subjective nature of the proposal in paragraph 3.01 and reminded the Committee that the applicant could submit an appeal if the application was refused.  He said that the policies of the Council should be upheld and the application refused. 

            Councillor Ron Hampson felt that the common sense approach should be taken and the application approved as no objections had been received and the dwelling could not be seen.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that decisions had to be consistent and fair and that the policies in place should be applied.  This application could not be compared with agenda item 6.4 as that was for a replacement dwelling within the settlement boundary but this was for an extension in the open countryside. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer referred to paragraph 7.04 where it was reported that Policy HSG12 allowed the extension and alteration to dwellings provided it was subsidiary in scale and form to the existing dwelling.  The ridge height had been reduced but the overall roof height of 6.1 metres was the same as for the previous proposal.  It was felt that the roof height could be reduced to a more appropriate height for a single storey extension. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager expressed his disappointment at some of the comments expressed by Members and concurred that this application could not be compared with the earlier application on the agenda.  On the issue of the 38% increase, the first floor had been removed from the previous application and the percentage increase was determined by floor area but the overall mass of the building remained the same as the previous application which had been refused.  He queried why the single storey extension required such a high roof and why roof lights were proposed when there were sufficient windows and patio doors proposed for the extension.  He referred to paragraphs 7.07 and 7.08 and reminded Members that if the application was permitted, this could result in an almost identical application to the one refused in 2013 as the Planning Authority would have no control if the applicant wanted to include a first floor. 

                        Councillor Halford raised concern at the comments of the Planning Strategy Manager about the need to comply with policy when there were two reports on the agenda which had inconsistent recommendations for similar applications.  Councillor Bithell said that officers had given advice on the policies concerned and expressed concern at the comments of Councillor Halford.  The Democracy & Governance Manager agreed with Councillor Bithell to the extent that it was not appropriate for Members to personalise comments when the officer was advising the Committee. 

                        On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application, against officer recommendation, was LOST.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.