Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for a revised detached dwelling.  Work has commenced on the permitted scheme, which has resulted in the applicant’s request for a further 450mm on the first floor height, a further 5.1m in first floor width, and an extension to the first floor landing.  The site is in the green belt.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  the key concern here is that this site is in the green belt.  The original dwelling was a very small bungalow with a cast-iron roof and one bedroom.  This grew a lot with the first application and just keeps growing, with a further 5m now requested, apparently for no good reason.  It is now like a film-star’s house, with a massive pool.  With the first design, the only thing showing was a small area at the top; was staggered on Planning View to see how big it has become.  The outbuildings were breeze block dog kennels and a chicken run, not part of the residential dwelling, and this proposal and hedge will make a difference to the green belt – it will stick out like a sore thumb.  The developer proceeded at his own risk; he could have built lower, but this would have cost him more.  The original application was only permitted by a narrow majority, due to the greenbelt location, and now the applicant is asking for an even more massive pad, on a site surrounded by cornfields.  If we could overlay the size of the original proposal with what is now proposed, Members would see that it is a very large increase indeed.

SW:  recalls a similar application to this, at which he voted with other Members but for a very different reason.  There is already planning permission on this land, and if it is to considered as building land, wants to see it built on properly, with more than one dwelling.  If it isn’t, and is still classed as green belt, does not want to see any further development on it.  Will vote in objection.

CHay:  considers the design to be fine; the principle is accepted, and this proposal is just a bit bigger.  Is there any height restriction on the green roof?  If the plants are maintained at 0.5m high, it will make no difference.  Recalls a similar application for a house on Cleeve Hill which was very controversial but went on to win a civic award, as an example of an attractive, modern, good-quality building which enhances the site.  This is just one house in the greenbelt, not rows and rows of housing; it looks good and is acceptable.

MS:  agrees with CHay.  The design is alright, and the original application has approval; to say an extra couple of feet will make any difference is wrong – it will go unnoticed.  We would stand no chance of winning an appeal.  The scheme is panning out well, and is likely to bring money to the area.  Will go with the officer recommendation.

BF:   Members shouldn’t forget that this was done at the applicant’s own risk.  Previously, the only visible part was a small part of the top of the building; this is now extended by 5m.  What’s the square meterage of the proposed dwelling now?  What if the applicant wants to extend it further, or sink the pool deeper?  There is also the question of the removal and replacement of the soil; the house seems to be a lot more visible when it was originally approved.

AC:  Members sometimes have to consider very boring architecture, but this is absolutely brilliant. It isn’t materially different to what was originally approved, there’s just a bit more of it.  It is an excellent scheme.  Will vote in support.

MJC, in response:

-       to BF, the applicant isn’t building at his own risk; he is building in accordance with the planning permission, and hasn’t yet started on the first floor, with which the current application is concerned;

-       the details of the square meterage are set out in the officer report; the original first floor was 88.5 square metres, the revised first floor is 120 square metres;

-       the pool is part of the original approval;

-       regarding levels, the drawings show them as they will be reinstated.  This is also approved.  The solid green line on the ground floor level indicates the level to which the land will be reinstated.  A lot of earth moved during the construction period will be reinstated – this is conditioned;

-       regarding the height increase, this is purely to do with the structure needed to retain the sedum roof.  Soil and sedum are heavy, and the roof has to be stronger.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT