Two-storey front extension at Rosings, Hundall, Dronfield

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey front extension, with potential future permitted development rights removed.

“Proposal Description: Proposed 2 storey front extension (with potential [future] PD Right A, B, C, D and E removed).”

Officer report

The site

The dwelling is in a rural hamlet outside a settlement limit and within the Green Belt.

“The application site is a two-storey dwelling located in Hundall as shown in figure 2 below. Hundall has a rural feel comprising scatted farmsteads and dwellings. It lies outside of any defined settlement development limit and within the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Earlier extensions and applications

The dwelling was substantially extended in 1985, and an earlier similar extension application was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“The original dwelling was built pre 1948 but was substantially extended in 1985 representing a 70% increase in size compared to the original building. The 1985”

“The application proposal (see Figure 4 below) seeks consent for a further two storey extension to the front of the property. It is the suggestion of the applicant made in the application details (and reflected in the application title) that, if the application is permitted, householder permitted development (PD) rights for classes A (extensions), B, C (alterations/extensions to the roof), D (porches) and E (outbuildings) could be removed.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal a disproportionate 95% increase over the original dwelling, harming Green Belt openness without very special circumstances.

“The previous extension has significantly altered the original dwelling. The current proposal would further diminish the character of the original dwelling and be visually more imposing extending the dwelling towards the road. The impact on the public realm would, therefore, also impact adversely on the visual openness of the Green Belt.”

“The applicant proposes that, in approving the application scheme, the householder permitted development rights as set out above could be removed. An illustration of the potential development on site that could be undertaken using permitted development rights is given. However, these are a largely theoretical possibility rather than being worked up and/or the subject of any formal scheme.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the ward councillor, a supporter, the applicant and a person speaking for the agent.

The committee debate

Members considered planning policies, expressed sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances, and raised concerns about precedent and the lack of very special circumstances.

“The Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS10 regarding the Green Belt and LC5 regarding Residential Extensions.”

“Some Members of the Committee expressed sympathy to the circumstances of the applicant but concerns were raised about the precedent that would be set if this application were permitted, and also that there were no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A motion to refuse permission in line with the officer recommendation was proposed, seconded and agreed, because the cumulative addition harmed the Green Belt without sufficient justification.

“At the conclusion of the debate Councillor T Lacey and Councillor N Baker moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the application, in line with officer recommendation. The Motion was put to a vote and agreed.”

“Inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

Minutes