Address:       10 Copper Beech Way, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BD

Erection of one detached dwelling with parking and access.  Erection of detached garage to serve 10 Copper Beech Way.

Applicant:     Mr F Marshall

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01001/FULL for the erection of one detached dwelling with parking and access and erection of a detached garage to serve 10 Copper Beach Way, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BD.

The Committee was aware that a previous application for a dwelling on this site had been refused by the Council and the resulting appeal was currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Mr Richard Murdock, the agent for the applicant, under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member, who had called in the application, commented on various issues including:

·         The application site lay in the Green Belt and very special circumstances were required to make the application acceptable.

·         The current application was for a smaller dwelling than in the previous application, though he queried if that was sufficient reason to justify approval in the Green Belt.

·         If the current application was approved would it mean that the previous application, now with the Planning Inspectorate, would almost certainly be approved and was the Committee therefore deciding two applications?

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to the previous application the Planning Inspectorate had only recently registered the appeal.  The appeal had been answered with a rebuttal statement setting out the opinion that there would be harm to the character and, as a result, openness due to the size of the proposed dwelling and the lack of landscaping.

·         The current application provided a significant reduction in building size, a lack of harm to openness and the result of the Green Belt Review (which had not been put forward as a Very Special Circumstance in support of the previous application) it was considered that, given the exceptional circumstances of the application site and the five purposes of the Green Belt, this area of land was considered weak in how it contributed to the Green Belt.  Those circumstances were not applicable elsewhere and so were felt to be exceptional.

·         The Inspector could chose to approve the previous application.  However, approving the current application would not mean the original application was also approved and the reasons for the Council’s refusal of the former were still held to be valid given the differences between the two. 

·         The ward Member stated that should the Committee approve the current application then, he felt, the Planning Inspector would be guided by this and approve the previous application.  The Chairman stated that Inspectors often stressed that each application was decided on its merits so it would be surprising if the Planning Inspector was influenced by the Committee’s decision.

·         Whilst the previous application was considered detrimental in size, massing, scale and lack of landscaping the proposed development had removed the planned built garage and reduced the dwelling by one storey.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69