PLANS to demolish a three-bedroomed detached house in the green belt at Lymm to make way for a three-storey, five bedroomed house are to be studied by Warrington’s development management committee next week.
Lymm Parish Council has lodged an objection to the scheme at Cherry Nurseries, Kay Lane on the grounds the proposed property will be larger than the existing house.
A neighbour has also expressed concern that delivery lorries will not be able to gain access to the drive, construction noise will disturb animals and that allowing the development will allow people to move into the countryside who do not understand it.
The applicant points out that the existing building could be extended because of previously approved applications and permitted development rights. Although the house will be larger than the existing property, the site boundaries will be unaltered.
Planning officers say although the proposal could be considered inappropriate because of the increased size of the house, granting approval would give the council to opportunity to remove permitted development rights and prevent any further development of the site.
They are recommending the scheme be approved.
Demolition plan for Green Belt home
44 Comments
4 Comments
“Planning officers say although the proposal could be considered inappropriate because of the increased size of the house, granting approval would give the council to opportunity to remove permitted development rights and prevent any further development of the site. They are recommending the scheme be approved.”
You just couldn’t make it up! What ridiculous excuses will they come up with next?
Is this planning dept ‘fit for purpose’? Perhaps there should be an investigation?
And if it doesn’t go through at the committee meeting then I would 100% bet that it goes through on appeal. For goodness sake, if the house can already be extended to the same size as the new one then the parish councils argument is null and void, there is fundamentally no sound reason why planning would not be granted. Why not rebuild a property that has had it’s time? And as for neighbours voicing that people should not move into the area if they do not understand the countryside, what absolute snobbery! Good luck to whoever has put this application through!
You don’t appear to be up to speed with planning policy ANON and obviously don’t keep up to date with case histories.
ANON – for your information.
NPPF
88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:……………….
• the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building
the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.
After reading the guidelines reread the planning officers’ reasons for recommending approval……….
“Planning officers say although the proposal could be considered inappropriate because of the increased size of the house, granting approval would give the council to opportunity to remove permitted development rights and prevent any further development of the site.”
Firstly, ‘could be’ is misleading the term used should have been ‘would be’.
Secondly, “granting approval would give the council to opportunity to remove permitted development rights and prevent any further development of the site.” is hardly ‘Very special circumstances’.
The planning authority would remove any further permitted development rights after the existing permission for an extension anyway. And in fact can block any permitted development rights that would be harmful to the green belt.
Note NPPF 88 states that any ‘Very special circumstances’ must not just outweigh but CLEARLY outweigh any other considerations.
In recent case law even applications for very much needed affordable housing have been refused on appeal due to the fact that the benefits do not CLEARLY outweigh the harm to greenbelt. So would you really think that one individual’s speculating development should carry more weight?