Agenda item

Neil Armstrong the applicant’s agent had been due to make a statement in support of the application, but he declined to do so.

One Member sought clarification of planning guidance and policy in terms of new development in the open countryside outside of defined settlements.  The Officers responded that such development were not uncommon, particularly when proposals were put forward relating to sites within an existing residential curtilege.  It was explained that in this case the proposed building on the site was not dissimilar to the existing building in terms of scale and size.  Therefore, the proposal was considered reasonable.

It was further explained that the proposal was for an ancillary building which could be controlled to prevent its use as a separate dwelling. The building was not for a two storey building which had been refused at appeal.  That proposal had the character of a separate building whereas this proposal was of a scale which could reasonably be regarded as a scale which would be ancillary to the main house.

One Member commented that he had concerns regarding the footpath near the proposal and notwithstanding the merits of the application in terms of scale and size he considered that the views from the footpath should be safeguarded.  The Officers responded that the plans did not show a footpath and that they would need to look into the matter.  However, it was explained that the footprint of the proposed building was the same as the existing building.  Furthermore, it was noted that the rear wall of the existing building was to be retained and therefore it was possible that the existing views from the footpath would not be different. 

One Member commented that on visiting the site it appeared to him that what appeared to be a scaffolding rental business was carrying on and he requested that this be drawn to the attention of the Enforcement Officer for investigation.  Furthermore, he expressed concern regarding the extent of building materials on site but he presumed these were in connection with this proposal.  The Member went on to express concern regarding the proposal in terms of its intended use.  He referred to an application in Kennington where a garage had been constructed with cavity walls and after a couple of years permission for a dwelling was sought which was refused but subsequently allowed on appeal.  He raised concern regarding a similar situation on this site, commenting that he was uncertain that the building would be used for a chicken house and he noted with concern that cavity walls were proposed.

The Officers advised this was a site in the countryside and the circumstances were probably different to the built up area of Kennington. It was explained that the proposal was much reduced in scale and size and that buildings within a curtilege were allowed.

By 13 vote to 1 it was

RESOLVED

(a)      that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority to approve application SHR/5532/8 subject to: -

(1)      the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)      the Officers clarifying the position of the footpath and being satisfied that there is no encroachment of the footpath and not adverse impact.

(b)      that the Enforcement Officer be requested to investigate the alleged unauthorised scaffolding rental business on the site.