Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Marcham and Shippon)

The Committee was advised that the applicant could construct a shallow pitch roof, 4 metres in height without the benefit of planning permission.  It was explained that the Officers did not consider this fall back position to be a concern. Members were asked to have regard to the proposal in terms of its impact on openness.  Finally, it was explained that the application was presented to Committee at the request of the local Member Councillor Jane Hanna, who supported the application.

Mr Hoek the applicant made a statement in support of the application referring to the history of the site.  He explained that the roof had been blown off during heavy storms and part of the walls had come down some 20 years ago.  He explained that he had discussed the condition of the property at that time with the Planning Officers and had been left with the impression that he could rebuild the property to make it look like it used to without planning permission.  Mr Hoek reported that he had been restoring the building over the last 14 years.  However, the Planning Officer had visited the site in 2000 and had advised that planning permission was required.  Mr Hoek explained that he wished to restore the building to its former glory and that he hoped to achieve a visually attractive building. He explained that a local architect had designed the roof at a pitch of 45 degrees, which was similar to other buildings in the area. He commented that there had always been a building on this site and that part of the original build could still be seen.

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·                    The proposal would be an improvement on the current state of the building.

·                    The detailed plans shown at the meeting differed to those set out in the report and that the detailing around the windows and doors was welcomed.

·                    The proposal would sit well in the Green Belt.

·                    This was a genuine project of restoration and much care had gone into making the building attractive.

·                    The roof height would not be out of keeping with those of neighbouring buildings.

In response to a question raised the Officers reported that the roof would be slightly higher that the original gable.

In response to a further question raised the Officers reported that they were unable to provide details of the roof heights of neighbouring buildings elsewhere in the road, although the finished structure of the proposed building would be about 6 metres high. 

One Member commented that clay tiles required a 45 degree pitched roof and it was questioned whether an amended proposal could be discussed with the applicant.  However, the Officers advised that Members needed to consider the application on its merits as presented.

One Member referred to the history of the site noting that had the building been rebuilt at the time of the gales, the applicant would not have required planning permission.  In response the Officers commented that the extent to which the building had become dilapidated at that time was uncertain. It was explained that if the building had been beyond reasonable repair it would have required being rebuilt and rebuilding works required planning permission.

In response to a question raised the Officer explained that the use of the building would be domestic store and workshop. One Member expressed concern that the building could be converted into additional accommodation.  In response the Officers explained that any existing domestic outbuilding could be used for accommodation of that house. 

It was commented that if there was a high pitch roof, accommodation could usually be made within that roof pitch.  One Member suggested that a condition could be added to prevent this although the Officers questioned the reasoning behind this as the intention of Green Belt policy was usually to protect the openness of the Green Belt.

It was proposed by the Chair that application MAR/3793/4 be refused for the reason set out in the report.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention.

One Member commented that materials for this proposal were crucial and he asked that careful consideration be given to them, notably the choice of clay tiles for the roof.

It was then proposed by Councillor Bob Johnston, seconded by CouncillorMatthew Barber and by 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and / or Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Member, be delegated authority to approve application MAR/3973/4 subject to appropriate conditions.