Agenda item

The following person addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

 

·         Mr Evan Leighton-Davis (to object) (read by the Democratic Services Officer);

·         Mr Tim Wood (in support) and;

·         Mr Andrew Bandosz (Agent) (in support)

 

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for erection of a single storey garden office outbuilding (retrospective application). 

 

The Committee was informed by the Development Management Majors Lead, Paul Sherman, that the garden building which had been built retrospectively was to be used in association with the host dwelling.  The application had been referred to committee as more than 10 letters of support had been received contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  The development was for the construction of a new building in the Green Belt and as such constituted inappropriate development.  The development was harmful by definition and also adversely impacted on the openness of the Green Belt which decision makers were required to afford substantial weight to.  Planning officers had concluded that the development would not result in harm to the character of the area, or to the adjoining properties or highway safety, however the absence of harm did not in itself weigh in favour of granting planning permission. 

 

Planning permission could only be granted where very special circumstances would clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by virtue of the inappropriate development.  The applicant had advanced considerations that they felt individually or cumulatively amounted to very special circumstances.  These were that a very similar or larger building to that which was subject of this application could be erected under permitted development, known as the fall-back position.  Additionally, the personal circumstances justified granting planning permission.  With regard to the fallback position, the current building did require planning permission.  Whether or not a similar building could be erected under permitted development had not been established without a Lawful Development Certificate and would not necessarily be preferable in planning terms to allow the current proposal as an alternative to any fallback position.  Planning officers therefore considered that this should be afforded little weight.  The personal circumstances had been summarised in a letter sent from the applicant’s agent to planning committee members and the Committee was therefore asked to avoid discussing the details of those personal circumstances in the debate.  Planning officers considered that the personal circumstances were a significant material consideration that did weigh in favour of granting planning permission. 

 

The Chairman permitted Councillors Ruth Brothwell and Bob McShee to speak in their capacity as ward councillors for three minutes each respectively.  Councillor Brothwell left the Council Chamber after she spoke, for the duration of the debate and vote taken in relation to this item owing to the non-disclosable pecuniary interest she declared in the application. 

 

The Committee considered concerns raised that the applicant had made a genuine mistake in constructing the outbuilding, thinking they were able to do so under Permitted Development Rights.  Whilst it was acknowledged that the building had been erected retrospectively in the Green Belt, it was also very small in size, unobtrusive and could not be seen by neighbours.  The Committee agreed that very special circumstances existed which outweighed the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt.  The applicant had also offered the removal of Class E Permitted Development Rights which the Committee agreed should only be removed in respect of outbuildings. 

 

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was lost.

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Chris Blow		X
2	Jon Askew		X
3	Angela Goodwin		X
4	Angela Gunning		X
5	Ramsey Nagaty		X
6	Graham Eyre		X
7	Fiona White		X
8	Chris Barrass		X
9	Maddy Redpath		X
10	Pauline Searle		X
11	Tim Anderson		X
12	Paul Spooner		X
	TOTALS	0	12	0

 

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Angela Gunning	X
2	Pauline Searle	X
3	Graham Eyre	X
4	Paul Spooner	X
5	Ramsey Nagaty	X
7	Maddy Redpath	X
8	Chris Blow	X
9	Fiona White	X
10	Tim Anderson	X
12	Angela Goodwin	X
13	Jon Askew	X
14	Christopher Barrass	X
	TOTALS	12	0	0

 

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

 

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/01106 subject to the following conditions and reasons:

 

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: AS BUILT PLANS AND ELEVATIONS – GARDEN

STUDIO, BLOCK PLAN and LOCATION PLAN received on 17 May 2021.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the

approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

 

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or

amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part

1, Classes E shall be carried out on the dwellinghouse hereby permitted or within

their curtilage.

 

Reason: The outbuilding approved constitutes inappropriate development within

the Green Belt, there are special circumstances which, subjected to the condition

imposed, clearly outweigh the hard that would be caused.

 

Informatives:

1. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and

Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to

development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive

manner by:

 

?? Offering a pre application advice service

 

?? Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been

followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during

the course of the application

 

?? Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues

identified at an early stage in the application process

 

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary

negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes

to an application is required.

 

?? Pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and the application

was considered unacceptable, however due to special circumstances was

allowed at committee.

 

2. If you need any advice regarding Building Regulations please do not hesitate to

contact Guildford Borough Council Building Control on 01483 444545 or

buildingcontrol@guildford.gov.uk

 

3. The applicants attention is drawn to the officers comments, the development by

virtue of being a new building within the green belt is considered unacceptable, the

very special circumstances identified have been considered to outweigh the harm

to the green belt and therefore make the application acceptable.