Agenda item

Councillor Helena Maxfield moved refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Paul Northcott

The Council’s Development Management Team Manager, Elaine Moulton clarified that the height of the two proposed garages would be close to 7 meters to ridge height, which compared to the building to be demolished which had a ridge height of 4.2 meters.  In terms of the footprint, the proposed garages had a much smaller one. The volume of the building lost was 840m3 compared to the garages which would have 440m3 volume.

Reference was made by the agent to the inclusion of a condition for a Construction Management Plan.  This was not recommended by the Environmental Health Division but did recommend that a construction hours condition be imposed.  Such a condition would be an appropriate one to impose if Members wished to include it. 

Councillor Maxfield had no issue with bringing existing buildings back into use but had an issue with the height of the proposed garages in relation to the buildings to be converted.  If the garage was to be the same height as the house, there was concern with regard to what it could be developed into in the future.  Councillor Maxfield also asked for reassurance that the public footpath would remain in operation during and after construction.

Councillor John Williams had concerns that the new build was coming right onto the public footpath and would like the footpath to remain open during construction.  In addition, Councillor Williams queried what materials would be used.  Elaine Moulton confirmed that the Dutch barn was of  a brick construction and weathered large cladding would be used to enclose the openings at the front of the building.  The roof would be galvanised steel.  The garages would be of a timber construction with a brindle clay tiled roof.  With regard to the footpath, the Dutch barn’s rear elevation did form part of the boundary. 

Councillor Northcott shared Councillor Maxfield’s views stating that the scale and height of the proposed garages was leading towards their being converted into dwellings in the future.  The way in which the proposed buildings had been staggered on the plans would also make it easy to divide up into separate properties.  In addition, the materials to be used in the construction of the garages did not inspire confidence for permanency.

Councillor Sue Moffat shared the concerns regarding the garages and enquired as to whether the application could be put to the Conservation Advisory Working Party for their consideration in terms of the Green Belt and suggested that a Construction Management Plan would be useful to give details on how the development was to be managed.

Councillor Holland shared the concerns of Members regarding the garages.  This was a special circumstances application regarding impact on the Green Belt.  The impact in terms of the footprint of the two garages compared to the existing buildings was interesting as was the difference in volumes.  If the hardstanding was taken into account, there was an argument that the impact on the openness of the green space would be about the same.  Councillor Holland asked if the garages came with any Permitted Development Rights and if so, would it be possible for this Committee to restrict them in order to prevent the garages being converted into dwellings without coming before the Planning Committee.

Elaine Moulton confirmed that there were no Permitted Development Rights that would enable the conversion of the garages into dwellings.  Any proposal of that nature would require a further planning application. Permitted Development Rights could be removed to limit the impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt which would be justified from a visual point of view. 

The Chair asked if there was an argument that the height of the proposed garages detracted from the openness of the Green Belt by the nature of their height rather than the footprint.  Elaine Moulton confirmed that the height of a building did affect the perception and could have a greater impact on openness than that of a greater volume but lower height.

Councillor Maxfield reiterated her concerns regarding the garages and that they could come back at some point with a planning application to convert them into dwellings.  Experience had shown that any change of dwelling status would usually go to an officer for a delegated decision, bypassing the Planning Committee.  Could a recommendation be added that any future change of dwelling status of the garages be brought back to Committee?  Elaine Moulton stated that Councillors had a right to call in any application to bring it to Planning Committee for a decision.  A note could be put on to highlight this Committee’s request that any such application be brought to this Committee for a decision.

Councillor Holland referred to the access to the properties and whether, for example for the Council’s refuse vehicles to get around the proposed turning circle.  Elaine Moulton stated that waste would need to be presented at the entrance to the site. 

Three proposals were put forward:

Refuse the application on the grounds of the scale and form and height of the garages which represented unacceptable development and had a cumulative impact of the special circumstances on the Green Belt. Moved by Councillor Maxfield and seconded by Councillor Northcott.

Defer the application to allow officer discussion with regard to the height of the garages – moved by Councillor Moffat and seconded by Councillor Jones

Permit with the removal of Permitted Development Rights – moved by Councillor Reddish and seconded by Councillor John Williams.

The first vote would be on whether the application should be refused, if that fell, deferral would be voted upon and finally a vote on to permit the application with the removal of Permitted Development Rights would be taken should the deferral vote fall.

Resolved:     That the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed garages would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of the scale, form and height.  There were no identified very special circumstances that would outweigh such harm and as such the proposed development was contrary to Policy S3 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan (2011) and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).