Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the erection of a two-bedroom dwelling house (DEV-020-2015/16).

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report for the erection of a two-bedroom dwelling house on land at Brownings Farmhouse, Gravel Lane in Chigwell. This application had been considered at Area Planning Sub-Committee South on 3 February 2016, where planning permission was refused. However, four members of the Sub-Committee stood to refer the application to this Committee under the Minority Reference rules within the Constitution.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the site contained a two-storey listed Farmhouse with a converted Barn used as a residential annexe to the main building, and was within a rural Green Belt locality. The application was concerned with the eastern section of the site which comprised the garden of the listed Farmhouse building. A Barn was located in this part of the site within significant trees that screened it from view. However, the Barn had been recently demolished without permission, and further unauthorised works had been carried out to erect a building in a similar position. The application submitted was for the extension of the Barn and its re-use as two-bedroom residential accommodation ancillary to the main farmhouse. An inspection of the site by Officers found that the construction process had already begun, which had resulted in the demolition of the Barn, and that the description of the proposed development was incorrect. Therefore, the description of the application used for this report was the more apt “erection of a two-bedroom dwelling house”.

The Principal Planning Officer added that the demolished Barn had had a floor area of 56m² whereas the proposed building would have a floor area of 275m² based on the proposal having two floors. It was also highlighted that an application for Listed Building consent was withdrawn before the application was considered by Area Planning Sub-Committee South, and Officers were of the opinion that the Barn was probably not a curtilage Listed Building. It was regrettable that the Barn had been demolished and substantial building work undertaken on the proposed replacement building without planning permission having first been obtained.

Planning Officers had concluded that the proposed development was inappropriate development in the metropolitan Green Belt, as it was substantially larger than the building it would replace and would harm the openness of the Green Belt. The footprint, height and appearance of the proposed building was also of an unacceptable design and would harm the setting of the listed Farmhouse. There had also been inadequate provision made for the retention of existing trees. Therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be refused. The ‘Way Forward’ for the Applicant would be to either re-instate the previous building on the site or construct a new single-storey building of a similar size to the demolished Barn. In addition, an arboricultural impact assessment for the existing trees on the site should also be undertaken.

The Committee noted the summary of representations received in relation to the application. There had been one letter received from the Parish Council in support of the application. The Committee proceeded to debate the application.

Cllr Knapman expressed concern over the length of time taken to resolve the application, and highlighted the medical condition of the Applicant, who wanted to move from the existing Farmhouse to a new home on the site of the former Barn. The Member felt that Officers were right to halt the construction of the replacement building as it was too large; however, the height of the proposed building had now been reduced to one storey and the footprint would be approximately the same as the previous Barn. Any increase would not exceed 40% of the size of the previous building.

A number of other Members were opposed to the application and supported the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. Reasons cited included that the surrounding area had an open aspect with houses scattered across the landscape within the Green Belt; the proposed development was too large and would be highly visible; the proposal was a replacement as the Barn had already been demolished; the building would eventually become a separate dwelling within the Green Belt; and the proposed development would have a huge impact on the Green Belt and the setting of the Listed Building.

When questioned about the means of access to the proposed new building, the Principal Planning Officer stated that there was an access to an adjacent field next to the building, but no vehicular access had been shown on the drawings. However, this had not been considered as a reason for refusal. It was also highlighted that planning enforcement action at the site had been deferred pending the decision on this planning application, and if the application was refused then the Council would proceed with enforcement action.

The Committee voted to refuse planning permission as per the recommendation of Planning Officers. The Committee felt that there was no way forward for this application as none of the original Barn was intact.

Resolved:

(1)        That Planning Application EPF/2701/15 at Land at Brownings Farmhouse, Gravel Lane in Chigwell be refused permission for the following reasons:

            1.         The proposed building would be materially larger than the building it                        replaced. It therefore represented inappropriate development which                    would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal                   was therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and                    contrary  to  policy  and  GB2A  of  the  Adopted  Local  Plan and                 Alterations, which was consistent with the NPPF.

            2.         The proposed building, by reason of its size, form and appearance,             constituted  an  excessively  large  building  which  also  had  an                            untraditional form and design inconsistent with its setting. This size                  and profile, together with a poor porch design and inappropriate roof                        slate, would result in a building of poor design that would detract from               the appearance and setting of the listed farmhouse on the site as well                  as the character and appearance of the locality.  The proposal was                          therefore contrary to policies CP2(i), DBE1, DBE4 and HC12 of the                 Adopted Local Plan and Alterations, and contrary to the National                         Planning Policy Framework.

            3.         By reason of its siting within the root protection zone of adjacent trees                     the proposal was likely to cause significant harm to them that would                 be likely to adversely impact on the visual amenities of the locality.                  Such harm was not assessed in any arboricultural impact assessment                     and, furthermore, no justified mitigation that might be required was                      proposed. It was therefore concluded the proposal did not make                         adequate provision for the retention of trees, contrary to Local Plan              and  Alterations policy LL10, which was consistent with the National                    Planning Policy Framework.