Agenda item

Resubmission: Replacement dwelling

Fairfields, Lowgate, Hexham, Northumberland

Resubmission: Replacement dwelling

Fairfields, Lowgate, Hexham, Northumberland

There were no questions arising from the site visit videos which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

N Turnbull, Democratic Services Officer, read out a statement from Parish Councillor Tom Gillanders, which would be attached to the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided:-

·       The report provided a synopsis of the planning history of the site.  Due to the residential caravan having been in situ in excess of 20 years, the use of the caravan was immune from enforcement after 10 years, which in effect meant they had permanent consent for a residential property which could be lived in all year round.

·       In accordance with Green Belt policy a replacement building for the same use would be permitted, if it was not significantly larger than the current building.

·       This application could not be compared with a conversion application previously considered by the Committee, where the original building had been removed.

·       The issue of whether a proposal was materially larger considered not only the percentage of floor area or volume increase, it also looked at the existing site, impact on openness, the dimensions and design of the property.

·       Previous former Tynedale policies considered an increase of 33% to be a limited extension to a building in the Green Belt, however this definition was no longer used in the NPPF.  A general rule now considered that something up to 50% could be considered not to be a substantial increase or a limited extension to an existing building, provided the design and issues raised above, were subordinate or not excessive.  Officers did not consider the proposal to be materially larger than the existing dwelling.

·       The application proposed a single-story building which was not significantly higher than the existing structure (18cm higher).

·       The red line defined the curtilage of the property and did not encroach further into the Green Belt.  The applicant also owned the adjacent paddock (the land outlined in blue in the power point presentation).

·       All the properties surrounding the site had been notified of the planning application and a site notice had also been displayed at the site entrance to fulfil the statutory notification requirements.  No objections had been received from any of the neighbours.  Two letters of support had been received.

·       A previous application, which had been dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspector, had proposed a 1.5 storey building with an increase of 140% on the original dwelling.  Pre-application discussions had been held which had resulted in the proposal being considered in line with comments in the Inspector’s decision.

·       Condition 6 proposed the removal of permitted development rights for extensions, which was common in countryside and Green Belt applications.

·       The current building was visible from the road between Hexham and Lowgate but not from the adjacent highway.  The view of the building was minimal; an increase in height of 18cm was not considered to have a greater impact than the existing building.  There was screening to the west and north and it was not considered that the proposed building would have a greater impact on the visual amenity of the landscape than the building that currently existed.

Councillor Horncastle proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.