Agenda item

Description:

Erection of a detached two-storey building for the purposes of special needs housing (Use Class C2) together with associated entrance gates, access, parking and landscaping.

As shown on plan nos.’ L2321/03; / 04A; 07G; /10A; /11A; /13; /14A; /16 and L1774/LPA received 31 March 2016.

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning informed the Committee of the following amendments to the Planning History on page 93 of the report:

SP/90/543

Detached two-storey dwelling and double garage (Outline)

Approved 12/12/1990

93/0519/DET

Approval of details pursuant to outline planning permission SP/90/543 dated 12^th December 1990 for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling and double garage.

Approved 10/11/1993

93/00330/OUT

Two detached dwellings each with single garages and car ports and a parking space.

Refused 21/07/1993 (on Green Belt grounds).

Furthermore the first sentence of paragraph 2.1 of the Planning Committee report needed to be updated.  Planning permission was originally granted in 1990 (the approved house and garage was still 215 sq. m floorspace).

Amended site plan with tree protection fencing details has been received.  The Tree Officer has raised no objection to this plan but has requested the proposed site layout plan (L2321/07G) to be superseded.  The applicant has agreed to this.

The drawing numbers listed on Page 1 of the committee report is to be amended as follows:-

As shown on plan nos.’ L2321/03; / 04A; /10A; /11A; /13; /14A; /16 and L1774/LPA received 31 March 2016, and amended plan no. DPA-69400-01 Rev. B received 27 May 2016.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Sati Panesar spoke for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

• Overwhelming need for the facility, one built at School Walk in Sunbury
• Need overrides marginal harm to the Green Belt
• Site is brownfield land
• Planning permission not required for six people living together and this is for two more.
• Complies with policy H04 which required special housing needs
• Issues relating to design, trees amenity space all acceptable
• No objections from statutory consultees or neighbours
• Very special circumstances exist
• Similar scheme approved in Green Belt in Windlesham due to very special circumstances

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at committee meetings, Councillor Evans spoke as Ward Councillor for the proposed development and raised the following key points:

• There was a need for the facility
• Close to existing roads
• Appropriate use and provides a very special circumstance
• Would not relax Green Belt policy but very special circumstances exist
• Permission could be conditioned
• No precedent would be made which would weaken the greenbelt policy

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Much larger than approved scheme
• Not visible
• House already approved on Green Belt
• Is a “hairline” decision
• Developments are not located in urban area as not viable
• Need exists but is it exceptional need?
• Historically an agricultural us on site, could build a large barn
• Officers made clear there were no permitted development rights for a barn
• Increased size of plot, loss of Green Belt
• No alternative site search undertaken

Decision:

The application was refused as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy for the following reason:

1.    The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated including no evidence why the facility cannot be provided in the urban area. It will result in the site having a more urban character, will diminish the openness and harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt, and conflict with three of the five purposes of Green Belts. It is therefore contrary to Policy GB1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 and Section 9 (Protecting Green Belt Land) of the Government's National Planning Policy Framework 2012.