House extensions and garage at Mapledene, Otford Lane, Halstead

What was proposed

The application proposed removing the swimming pool and building a garage, extensions, dormers and other alterations, with landscaping and fenestration changes.

“Proposal: Removal of existing swimming pool. Erection of a garage, lobby between garage and dwelling and part two storey and part single storey side and rear extensions (including demolition of conservatory) and provision of dormers, removal of existing chimneys and replacement with new chimney and reconstruction of parapet to north elevation, and canopy over the porch. Landscaping and alterations to fenestration.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is an existing home in residential use, screened by high hedging, within a loose-knit semi-rural area and the Metropolitan Green Belt.

“Description of site 1 The site comprises of an existing residential dwelling located on Otford Lane within the Parish of Halstead. The site is in existing residential use. The site is well shielded to the front/street facing elevation due to the presence of high hedging and the plot is overall well concealed from public views.”

“4 24/03430/PAE – Prior notification of a single storey rear extension which extends 7.75m beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house with a maximum height of 3.94m and eaves height of 2.6m – PNRQD 5 25/00592/LDCPR – Erection of outbuilding – REFUSE 6 25/01660/LDCPR – Erection of pool house and associated hardscaping – GRANT 7 87/01492/HIST – Two storey extension – GRANT 8 85/01545/HIST – Garage - GRANT Policies 9 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 10 Core…”

Officer report

The Green Belt issue

The proposal would increase the original dwelling’s floorspace by 157%, creating disproportionate additions and harm to Green Belt openness.

“Belt remains even if there is no further harm to openness because of the development. 21 Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and is different from visual impact. Openness is about freedom from built form although it can have a visual element. Even if there is absence of harm to openness, there can be harm in principle to the Green Belt from inappropriate development. 22 Policy GB1 of the ADMP provides the local policy on extensions in the Green Belt.”

“The consequence of this would be clearly seen in the resultant scale, increased height, bulk and massing of the resultant dwelling, which would be greater than the original building. 24 From the available evidence and application history on the site, the dwelling has previously been extended to the rear with both a two storey addition, as well as a single storey conservatory.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over the 50% increase and lack of special circumstances; highways and Southern Water raised no objection after amendments, and no representations were received.

“The Council object as it appears that the planning application exceeds the 50% increase in the existing dwelling, there are no apparent special circumstances justifying permitting breech of this rule.”

“The applicant may therefore wish to commission a speed survey to establish prevailing vehicle speeds. The 85th percentile speed would then be used to determine the appropriate visibility splay distances. • Visibility splays must be shown to the nearside carriageway edge on a scaled drawing, and no obstruction over 1.05 metres above carriageway level should fall within these splays.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application, a speaker for it, and the local member, Councillor Grint.

Members’ questions and debate

Members focused on removing the swimming pool, the fall-back position and adding a condition to prevent further permitted development.

“Questions of clarification of the officers were asked with a focus on the removal of the swimming pool and the fall-back position. It was explained that if permission was granted, the swimming pool would be removed as per the plans. The wording of the permission was such that only buildings in the approved block plan could be on site.”

“Members discussed the report giving consideration to additional conditions to prevent development and therefore removing Permitted Development rights.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee amended the recommendation with an additional condition and resolved to grant planning permission subject to the listed conditions.

“Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the following recommendations:”

Minutes