Agenda item

(All Councillors present declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3(2) by virtue of the fact that Mr Keith Chopping (supporter) and Mr John Cornwell (agent) were known to them. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3(2) by virtue of the fact that he had met all members of the Chopping family including Keith Chopping’s wife and daughter, as they were local Councillors in the area where he lived. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 3(2)) concerning Planning Application 22/01062 in respect of the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to form a single dwelling.

Mr Matthew Shepherd (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the item and highlighted the key points in the report and update report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Keith Chopping and Mrs Lucy Chopping, supporters, Mr John Cornwell (agent) and Councillor Ross Mackinnon (Ward Member) addressed the Committee on this application.

Supporter Representations:

Mr Keith Chopping and his daughter Mrs Lucy Chopping in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Chopping stated that there was already an existing approval on the building to turn it into a residence. This had been granted in 2020 when permitted development rights were removed.

·         The current application aimed to improve the living quality of the building.

·         There had been no objections to the proposal locally. Mr Chopping and his wife were the owners of the building and the occupants of the building would be his daughter and her family. 

·         Mrs Chopping provided some background to why the application had been submitted. Just over three years ago Mrs Chopping had discussed an idea with her parents to discuss converting the stables into a home for herself and her family. This would enable her parents to stay in their house for longer without the need to downsize. This would mean that she would be available to help her parents maintain the home they had lived in for the last 33 years. With the help of her brothers, permission had been received for the conversion however, due to Covid everything had needed to be put on hold.

·         In the past two years Mrs Chopping explained that both of her parents had ended up in hospital and her mum’s mobility had decreased so much that she required a wheelchair.

·         Mrs Chopping explained that she had helped her parents as much as possible with daily visits but the end goal was to be there for them permanently. This brought her on to the latest application, which was being discussed.

·         Since Covid both Mrs Chopping and her husband had been lucky enough to remain in full time employment but as with lots of companies, there had been changes. Her husband now worked from home permanently and Mrs Chopping explained that she had been offered a new position, which meant that she could work from home part time.

·         The original application had been for three bedrooms with two on the ground floor along with a kitchen diner and then a bedroom and living room upstairs. The new application had been submitted, which added in an office on the ground floor. This would move all three bedrooms upstairs hence the plan to raise the roof slightly to make it more comfortable.

·         The gable end had been replicated to be as sympathetic as possible to the existing building. The aim was also to make the house more eco-friendly. Solar panels and a heat pump were proposed and the two gable ends had been connected with the glass windows, which would hopefully house the solar panels, without having to put them on the roof.

·         Mrs Chopping stated she was asking the Committee on behalf of her family and her parents to allow them to proceed with the proposal. They were happy to accept any conditions proposed but the proposal needed to be progressed soon for the sake of her family.

·         Mr Chopping noted that the Officers’ objections were under four headings including the roof that was being raised; the glass to the front of the proposal; the extension itself and an issue with bats (long eared brown bats).

·         The roof of the building was reaching the end of its useful life and was formed from concrete slates. The roof would need to be redone anyway so therefore it had been felt this would provide an opportunity to raise it by 800mm to make it more liveable inside.

·         The glass to the front of the proposal that the Officers were concerned about was a clever way of insulating the building. The extension itself just covered the area of hard standing of the existing building.

Member Questions to the Supporters:

Councillor Owen Jeffery asked what Mr Chopping felt would happen regarding the bats bearing in mind the previous certificate had expired. Mrs Chopping stated that they would get a new survey undertaken. Natural England had confirmed that they were happy to renew the license subject to a new survey. Mr Chopping stated that the family had been prepared to agree to a condition to provide this license however, he had been startled to learn from the Ecology Officer that you could not condition a bat license.

Councillor Geoff Mayes noted there were two problems in his mind, firstly the request to raise the roof and he queried if the roof slope would be retained. Mrs Chopping confirmed that it would be retained exactly the same as it was currently. Councillor Mayes noted that the barn overhang would need to be removed and Mr Chopping stated that the plan was to remove this permanently. Councillor Mayes commented that all the existing roof timbering would also need removing and he queried if the wood would be reused. Mrs Chopping commented that they would like to reuse it to retain some of the character. Councillor Mayes noted the desire to replace the concrete slates with clay tiles. Mr Chopping stated there was a budget choice to be made on this point because concrete slates did not cost as much as clay tiles. The concrete slates might be reused however, he felt it would be nice to have clay tiles if it could be afforded within the budget.

Agent Representations:

Mr John Cornwell in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Whether the application was successful depended on to what degree it met the seven criteria and policy.

·         Criterion one said ‘the proposal involved a building that was structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration’. The key word here was ‘substantial’. The explanatory text stated that ‘the building should be capable of being converted and accommodated within the existing landscape without significant effects on the rural character of the area including light pollution. It was expected that building works would be relatively minor and would involve the use of matching materials’.

·         The proposal delivered a 35 percent extension to the existing structure. Mr Cornwell had spent much of his career working in the metropolitan green belt, which had the most restrictive planning policy in the country. Even there, existing dwellings were allowed to increase their original footprint by 50 percent. In Mr Cornwell’s view what was being asked for as part of the proposal was not excessive and it was all a matter of degree.

·         Members who had attended the site visit would have noticed that there was no visibility between the application site and the outside world. It was wholly contained within a deep vegetation screen.  Mr Cornwell had lived in the area for 36 years and walked past the site regularly and he stated it was not possible to see the site at all. Therefore Mr Cornwell did not agree that the proposal did not meet Criteria four and five because it did not have any adverse impact on the rural character because it could not be seen. If the site was next to a public highway then it would be a very different situation and might contravene the policy. As the site could not be seen Mr Cornwell queried where the harm was.

Member Questions to the Agent:

Councillor Alan Law noted that Mr Cornwell quoted the officers as saying the application was not compliant with subsection four. He felt that Mr Cornwell had misread this as Officers were not refusing on subsection four but were refusing on subsections one, six and seven. Councillor Law queried if this changed any of Mr Cornwell’s opinions. Mr Cornwell referred to subsection six and stated that the building was using matching materials and he was sure the applicant would be prepared to put clay tiles on the roof. The extensions were not significant in Mr Cornwell’s view. The glazed sun lobby was for insulation purposes but because it was fully glazed it would not cover the existing elevation, which would be able to be seen through the glazing. The proposed extension matched an existing extension at the other end of the elevation. Mr Cornwell did also not regard a two foot extension to the roof as material. All matters being considered were ones of opinion and degree and it was about how the policy was applied.

Mr Cornwell referred to the bat issue, which he understood could not be conditioned. If Members were happy with the proposal but had to refuse it due to the bat survey matter Mr Cornwell explained that there would be no issue conducting a bat survey. The season for this was April to September, so a survey could be submitted by the end of September 2022. The application would then be re-submitted. The Chairman stated that he would need to seek professional advice on this point.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Mackinnon in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         No views from residents had been raised regarding the proposal. There had been no objections and no letters of support. This was largely down to the fact, as Mr Cornwell had highlighted in his representation, that the site was completely enclosed and not visible from any public viewpoint.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

There were no questions raised by Members.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Mackinnon stated that he was in agreement with Mr Cornwell that the key word was ‘substantial’. Councillor Mackinnon queried the definition of what should be considered ‘substantial’ and asked Mr Shepherd if there was a threshold or if it was a judgement call. Mr Shepherd confirmed that there was not a percentage requirement within the policy with regards to what was classed as ‘substantial’, there were however supporting details under point 4.34 of Policy C4 that detailed that works would need to be relatively minor and it came down to an opinion on the application. The proposal would cause a 38 percent increase in floor area from the original. Mr Shepherd explained that the Nationally Described Space Standards were referred to when judging an application and what was the bare minimum that was accepted as a dwelling. Officers had calculated this to be 133 percent larger than the Nationally Described Space Standards. Each section of the proposal had to be considered in terms of whether it was classed as ‘substantial’, including raising the ridgeline or the proposed change to the gable end. Mr Shepherd stated that what was considered substantial was a matter for debate.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the 38 percent increase mentioned by Officers and stated that he could not find this detailed within the report. Mr Mehdi Rezaie commented that looking at the report retrospectively, detail on increased footprints should have been included and this would be noted for future reports. One area that had not been included in the report was the Nationally Described Space Standards of 2015. For a dwelling house that comprised of two storeys, was of a three bedroom nature and accommodated six persons as depicted in the proposal, the Nationally Described Space Standards stipulated that the floor area at a minimum should be 102m2. The proposal was for 237m2, which was a 133 percent increase over the Nationally Prescribed Space Standards. Looking at the previous permission, which had established a principle there was there was a footprint of 171m2, this was a 70 percent increase over the Nationally Described Space Standards. Officers had needed to make a judgement as there was no clear definition regarding what should be considered as substantial. Taking the past permission into account, it had been accompanied by two planning conditions that removed permitted development rights, which had been done with the intention to not further exacerbate the scale of the development. The factors had to be weighed up in terms of the previous consent. Mr Rezaie explained that the previous permission also measured beyond the Nationally Described Space Standards and the applicant could choose to commence this at any time. The proposal as it stood was a significantly large increase of 133 percent over what was currently advised.

Councillor Mackinnon asked a hypothetical question of whether it would be acceptable under the policy if the existing building itself was 133 percent larger than the existing Nationally Described Space Standards and the conversion did not involve any expansion. Mr Rezaie stated that the Nationally Described Space Standards were in place purely for indicative minimum standards. Councillor Mackinnon clarified the point he was making regarding the policy and explained that if there was already a building in place that was structurally sound that was the size of the proposal, the conversion of the building to a dwelling would be acceptable under Policy C4. Mr Shepherd confirmed that this was correct and that conversion of the original dwelling without any extension or alterations that were above the Nationally Described Space Standards would be acceptable.

Councillor Richard Somner referred to the issue of the bats. He had assumed when reading the report that this was something that could be conditioned until the update report had been published confirming this was not possible. Councillor Somner referred to the previously approved application and queried if the bat survey would need to be done anyway for the applicant to progress with it. Mr Shepherd stated that his understanding was that from a planning perspective, the applicant had fulfilled the planning conditions and could implement the permission given in 2020 but to do so they would have to apply for a license from Natural England. This would however, not require the applicant to come back to the local planning authority for approval.

Councillor Law stated that one of the issues was that the application fell between a conversion and a substantial redevelopment. The possible reason why Officers had not included Nationally Described Space Standards including volume and space comparisons was because this was normally only used when looking at extensions. This would fall under Policy C6. Councillor Law noted that the report referenced C4 however queried why C6 had not also been looked at.

Secondly, Councillor Law referred to the point raised by the planning consultant and Councillor Mackinnon and queried if the words ‘substantial extension’ had been missed or if it has been purposefully excluded. Councillor Law felt this was an important point because the decision depended on what was considered as substantial. The Chairman felt that it was possibly an error in terms or where the comma was placed.

Mr Shepherd firstly commented on why Officers had not used Policy C6. Policy C6 looked at the extension of existing dwellings in the countryside and it was clear that development had not started and the structure was still a stable block. Therefore applying Policy C6 would have been incorrect because it was not an existing dwelling. If the structure was converted and an application for an extension was submitted in the future it was possible that Policy C6 would be referred to.

In response to Councillor Law’s second point and Policy C4, regarding whether the word ‘extension’ had been missed, the policy was worded as follows ‘substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration’. It was Mr Shepherd’s interpretation that the policy chose not to repeat the word ‘substantial’. 

Councillor Law raised a supplementary question and asked if the existing extant permission went ahead, could the applicant apply for future extensions including raising the roof. Mr Shepherd confirmed that this was correct and Officers would have to judge any future application on its individual merits.

Councillor Tony Linden referred to Councillor Sommer’s point concerning the bats. He asked if he was correct in understanding that the applicant would not be required to submit a new application and would only be required to submit a revised report as part of the legal agreement. The Chairman asked Councillor Linden to clarify the question. Councillor Linden recalled that Mr Chopping had referred to putting in a free application regarding the bats. Mr Shepherd stated that the rule was that there could be a resubmission within one year of a similar application proposal and this was free. This was what the Applicant’s agent had been referring to.

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried if the roof was not raised as proposed if the space in the roof would be sufficient for human habitation. Mr Shepherd stated that the previous Officer had considered this as part of the 2020 application and considered that there was sufficient space to achieve the bedrooms and floor space. It was possible however, that raising the roof height would provide further usable floor space.

The Chairman queried, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, if it could be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory bat survey. Mr Shepherd stated that the Officer advice was that the completion of a bat survey should not be included as a condition because it would not be possible to take account of all the issues that could arise.

Debate:

Councillor Mackinnon firstly referred to the bat issue that required further discussion however, suggested this be put aside to enable consideration of the proposal.  The word ‘substantial’ was the word of importance and in the absence of specific guidelines the area requiring judgement was what should be considered a substantial extension and whether a 38 percent increase was considered substantial. Councillor Mackinnon also felt that the site visit was something that needed to be taken into account. Members who attended this would have seen the extension marked out on the ground at the gable ends and could observe the roof height. Based on the site visit Councillor Mackinnon struggled to see how the proposed increases could be classed as a substantial extension however, he acknowledged that this was a judgement other Committee Members would have to make. Councillor Mackinnon was leaning towards the view that the proposed extension was not substantial for the reasons he had outlined.

Councillor Law stated he was on the cusp regarding whether the proposal was substantial or not. There were clearly five reasons that the Officers were giving for refusal of the application. He was mindful of the bat matter and there was uncertainty regarding how this should be handled. There was also a matter of debate over whether the proposal was substantial or not under subsection one of Policy C4 and Councillor Law added that there was also still subsections six and seven to look at. A design objection had also been introduced with the update report. Councillor Law felt that if the application was not connected to a previous Member of the Council he would be minded to refuse it. Councillor Law was concerned regarding how it would look if the application was to be approved. 

Councillor Somner acknowledged the points raised by Councillor Law however, was of a different view. Councillor Somner saw an applicant that was desperately trying to meet the criteria and had fallen short of meeting the policy. Councillor Somner felt it came down to how material the variances were. He had not been able to join the site visit however, was looking at the proposal in the wider context of its setting. Many properties were having glass frontages installed in modern times to benefit from views. Councillor Somner felt that Officers needed to seek more information on such applications moving forward. Councillor Somner agreed with Councillor Law that it was not easy to make a decision regarding the application. He understood both sides of the argument. He understood that the bat issue needed resolving however, this would not sort the other matters that would come up again if the application was re-submitted. Councillor Somner wished to hear the views of other Committee Members before making his decision.

The Chairman acknowledged that it was not an easy decision not withstanding that it should be irrelevant that Members of the Committee knew the applicant. The Council took account of personal circumstances but it was a policy driven Council and the Chairman stated he would ask for guidance from Officers on this point.

Councillor Mayes stated that there was a problem in that the property was in the countryside, outside of the boundary and in the past it had always been assumed that an annex to a major property could end up in separate ownership. The current application involved a parental home with an annex, which was deemed separate in planning terms. He believed the proposal was a large extension however, did not feel that it was substantial in terms of the volume. Councillor Mayes was therefore inclined to go against the Officer recommendation and approve planning permission.

Councillor Linden agreed it was a cusp issue however, the site was not within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and he queried how much harm would be caused by the application if approved. It was larger than Members would have liked however, for Councillor Linden it came down to the question of what harm would be caused. He also acknowledged the matter of the bats.

The Chairman asked Officers for advice regarding how the bat matter could be dealt with should the Committee be minded to approve the application. Mr Shepherd stated that he would look for advice from Legal colleagues however, he advised against refusing the application on the bat issues alone and that Members should consider the Policy C4 issue.

Mr Rezaie stated that there were three approaches that could be taken to determining the application. Members could refuse the application based on the issue of design, scale and being substantial, alongside the Officers other recommendation regarding the ecology matter, which had resulted from there not being sufficient information to enable the Officer to make a sound judgement. Alternatively Members could refuse the application disregarding the earlier refusal reasons regarding design, scale and the substantial matter and focus wholly on the bat issue. This approach would mean the applicant would have one refusal reason to address should the application be heard at Committee again. Mr Rezaie was conscious that a time extension had already been applied to the application, which ran until Friday 15^th July and therefore there was a third option possible, which would be to defer the application and allow the applicant to submit the ecological surveys. Normally applications were not held for such a long time however, given the circumstances this was deemed acceptable and would allow time for the Local Authority to receive a further supplement application on ecology. Mr Rezaie added that the applicant could also not appeal for non-determination following Friday 15^th July 2022. The item would then be referred to a future Committee meeting to consider the matter of ecology. The Chairman thanked Mr Rezaie for his guidance. He appreciated the pressures around planning timescales and the risk of appeal for non-determination and equally the pressure that local authorities needed to deal with applications in the prescribed time however, on occasion scope for negotiation was required to allow for the provision of information. The Chairman was surprised the applicant had not been informed regarding the bat survey issue.

Ms Armour advised that there was possibly a further option in that the resolution could be framed so that the application was approved subject to a satisfactory bat survey being received, in the same way that applications were sometimes subject to a S106 Agreement. She was aware that Planning were reluctant to take this approach but felt it needed to be raised so Members could consider each option. Mr Rezaie stated it was important to consider the risks associated with conditioning an ecological matter. Ms Armour stressed that she was not suggesting the matter be conditioned and explained the decision granting permission would not be issued unless a satisfactory bat survey was received, and if a satisfactory bat survey was not received, within a specified period, the application would be refused.  This would be in the same way decisions were often subject to a S106 Agreement. The decision would not be issued until the bat survey was received and deemed satisfactory. Ms Armour further explained that the matter would be delegated to Officers and if a satisfactory bat survey was not submitted the application would be refused or the applicant might choose to withdraw the application.

Mr Rezaie stated that the issue with the approach suggested by Legal was that the information that was re-submitted could be deemed unacceptable and refusal reasons would be required. The Chairman noted that if this was the case then the permission would not be granted and any resolution would need framing in this way.

Councillor Owen Jeffery explained that he had been required to substitute for Councillor Macro at late notice and therefore he had not been able to attend the site visit or have the benefit of having a long time to read the paperwork. Councillor Jeffery felt there seemed to be a complex interplay of situations and he would feel reluctant to agree if the Committee was to refuse the application when there were so many issues that were very debatable. Councillor Jeffery felt supportive of the route suggested by Legal.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the matter of whether the proposal was substantial or on the cusp. Even if the application was to be considered as substantial, the Committee was still able to view the application as an exception to the policy and Councillor Mackinnon felt that given the enclosed nature of the site this would be a good reason. Councillor Mackinnon felt that the suggested approach from Legal seemed sensible.

Councillor Somner asked for clarity on whether the option suggested by Legal was better than deferring the application. Ms Armour stated that this was probably a question for Planning Officers however, with the option she had outlined, if a satisfactory bat survey was not received then refusal reasons would be required. Mr Shepherd stated that Officers were being requested not to delay the determination of applications for important documents such as for protected species. To be consistent across applications, Officers normally looked to refuse such applications rather than stock pile them to deal with these issues. If the documents were submitted and were unacceptable it was highly likely that the application would have to return to Committee due to requiring further reasons for refusal.

Councillor Law referred to the issue of the bats and based on this would be more supportive of deferring the application. The Committee however still needed to make a decision regarding whether or not the proposal was considered to be substantial. Councillor Law believed Councillor Mackinnon had implied the application was against policy and therefore an exceptional reason would be required to approve it. Councillor Law did not feel that the reason given, regarding the site being very enclosed, was exceptional and would cause a precedent.

The Chairman believed it was within the power of the Committee to approve something that was against policy if there were exceptional reasons and asked for guidance from Planning Officers on this point. The Chairman recalled in the past that such applications had been referred up to District Planning Committee for consideration, which was an added level of complexity. He asked for guidance on whether the application should be deferred; approved subject to a bat survey or if it was against policy. Councillor Mackinnon acknowledged Councillors Law’s point regarding the application being against policy and stated that he wished to withdraw the comment he had made. He clarified that he felt that the application was not against policy because he did not feel it was substantial.

Mr Rezaie advised against adding a condition for a bat survey or approving it subject to a bat survey because the bat survey itself could cause issues to emerge that conflicted with policy. Mr Rezaie stated that his advice would be to defer the application.

Councillor Law proposed that the application be deferred. This would provide time for Members to further consider the application and whether it was substantial. It would also provide the applicant time to submit a bat survey. Councillor Somner seconded the proposal by Councillor Law and suggested more in depth pre-application conversations needed to take place. Many of the issues discussed could have been addressed in advance of the Committee meeting. Councillor Somner supported the proposal of deferral and requested continued conversation between all parties involved to ensure all issues were fully understood. Any report that returned to the Committee needed to be completely clear and include all relevant percentages including increases from the preapproved application.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Law, seconded by Councillor Somner. At the vote the motion was approved.

RESOLVED that the application was deferred to a later Committee to allow time for an updated ecology survey to be undertaken.