Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater stated that with the new Local Plan emerging and having been to Cabinet in May the content of and wording of planning policies is a significant issue for the Council at this time. He added that members will be aware that there are essentially 2 types of policy, strategic and what can go where along with impact and what will the impact of a development have.

Mr Slater made the point that the strategic objections to the application before them from the officer are based on a reinterpretation of the application submission to suppose it is a separate new dwelling and added that this is not the case as the application is made explicitly for an annex accommodation and garage and pool room incidental to the existing dwelling on site. He expressed the view that officers have reinterpreted the application as one for a new dwelling and in doing so have applied the strategic policies in terms of location and flood risk which are not appropriate for the development applied for.

Mr Slater stated that with the application description of development as submitted, Policy LP3 is not relevant to annex accommodation, as by definition it must be related to the existing residential unit as an annex cannot be on land outside of the host dwellings curtilage and as such reason1 falls away. He added that for domestic annex accommodation a flood risk sequential test is not necessary as it by definition forms part of the established residential unit and, therefore, it is also considered that reason 3 for refusal falls away.

Mr Slater expressed the view that is, therefore, contended that the key reason for refusal must be one of impact, rather than principle as set out in reason 2. He explained that the pool is already in situ and the proposal simply seeks to put a building around it and this form of development would normally be built as permitted development under class E as it is less than 4m in height and incidental to the residential use, with the garaging itself if it were part of a single storey building would also be permitted development (less than 4m height under class E).

Mr Slater stated that the officer’s report at paragraph 9.5 confirms that the external appearance of the annex is considered acceptable in its own right, which, in his opinion, seems to contradict the policies quoted in relation to design within reason for refusal 2 as both LP16d and the NPPF references, which are appearance-based policies. He added that the site lies within a well screened area with surrounding agricultural and residential properties such that the proposal will have very little visual impact outside of the immediate site.

Mr Slater stated that the Council does not have an adopted policy or indeed supplementary planning guidance in relation to the definition of and scale of annex accommodation and as such it falls as a matter of judgement in relation to scale and the relationship to the existing/host property. He explained that the main house is currently occupied by Mr Turner and his family who along with Mr Turner senior, operate Turner Contracting Ltd, which is a successful local business which operates from the yard to the rear.

Mr Slater explained that Mr Turner senior personal circumstances have changed recently, and he needs to find accommodation in the locality to enable him to be close to his family and to continue to work in the business and facilitate the transfer of the business to his son. He added that there is, therefore, an economic basis for the application to enable to continued smooth operation and transfer of the business as well as a social one to enable Mr Turner senior to remain close to his family.

Mr Slater pointed out that members will note that the definition of sustainable development in the NPPF incorporates both a social and economic strands and stated that Mr Turner senior will continue to work part time in the business and needs to be on site to assist in day-to-day operation with his input reducing over the next few years and the annex would enable him to do this whilst enabling the family occupation of the main house and business continuity during the transition. He expressed the view that it is common practice that matters of the annex accommodation being and remaining ancillary to the main house can be controlled by condition and it is noted that there are no technical objections to the proposal and the Parish Council recommend approval.

Mr Slater asked that members consider the application in the terms of its submission as annex accommodation and incidental garage/pool room as it is contended that the proposal causes no material harm in policy or impact terms.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that although the swimming pool is already in place it is very small there are plans to extend it as it gives a roof lantern of five metres by two metres and a pool is probably 10 metres by 20 metres and he asked for confirmation that the current pool will not remain in its current form. Mr Slater confirmed that the swimming pool on site will not be the swimming pool.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether there is a reason why Mr Turner senior needs a home which is bigger than the house that the rest of the family are currently residing in. Mr Slater explained that the actual area of the building that is accommodation is obviously a relatively small portion of it and he needs two bedrooms for his own needs plus a guest and, therefore, the actual accommodation part is first floor over the garage.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he has never seen an annexe before which needs a three-car garage and a swimming pool and, in his opinion, it is going to be used by the current household.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that when you are caring for people you do need extra space as there is more storage and equipment required, such as hospital beds, wheelchairs and mobility aids. He added that in certain circumstances it can also be an option for a carer to come and live in the household which is possibly why two bedrooms are required. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the swimming pool may be required to assist with the care and therapy although there is nothing within the report to suggest this. He added that from what he has heard today there appears to be the need for the two bedrooms and the need for space in the building and if a pool is used for part of the therapy, which he accepts has not been proven, but these adaptions do lend to somebody who is old and wants to keep mobile and they can be a benefit to the family.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that if the application had come before the committee with the request for the proposal to be built because there was family that needed this type of accommodation, but it has been said that the gentleman is going to continue working part time and, in her opinion, it does not suggest that he needs all of the proposed facilities.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that the report states that the ground floor of the annexe will be used jointly between the whole household, and he added that the planning regulations encourage family units and health and wellbeing of the family and to look after aging relatives. He added that the family should be applauded for their efforts and whilst the gentleman may be able to work currently there are many people who are immobile who work two or three days a week. Councillor Topgood expressed the view that he cannot see anything wrong with the application.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that families get to a stage where they take the same view where they begin to try and plan ahead for the future, and he expressed the view that he can see an increase in these types of applications. He can understand why the application included two bedrooms, but he does not think that the case has been justified properly.

·       Councillor Marks referred to a previous application which committee had considered in Manea which was for an annexe accommodation. He added that unfortunately older people do need help and assistance and that is not being put on social welfare going forward.

·       Councillor Benney stated that although the gentleman can work currently, health can deteriorate very quickly and, in his opinion, to have this in place before the gentleman’s health deteriorates further is a very forward-thinking step.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked officers to clarify that if the application had been submitted for this type of accommodation for ill health reasons would they have made the same recommendation. Nick Harding stated that when dealing with an application for an annexe the starting point has to be whether the proposal is of a scale which is relevant to the context. He added that mixed in with the proposal for an annexe there are other elements which are associated with providing facilities which are shared between the annexe and the main dwelling such as the swimming pool and garaging. Nick Harding stated that nothing has been presented with regards to the health concerns and a health evidence base to justify the need for an annexe.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he thinks the proposal is totally out of context for where it is and, in his opinion, it is just a large annexe for the family.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked that if somebody submits an application for an annexe do officers ask the applicants for some type of justification and if officers did not ask for more information how does the applicant know what information they have to submit? Nick Harding stated that in this case the agent is well aware as to what information needs to be submitted as part of a planning application and the agent has submitted a statement with this application to advise that the annexe is needed as the gentleman has found himself in a change of circumstances and needs to move closer to his family and is approaching semi-retirement and will hand over the business to his family.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation. This was not supported by a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority given to officers to determine appropriate conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they consider that the proposal does meet the requirements of LP3 as it is an annexe, and the proposal will benefit the family and overrides the reasons stated for refusal.