Agenda item

Andrew Clarke, Senior Planning Officer introduced the retrospective application for the demolition of a barn and erection of a four bedroom dwelling. He noted that this was a very complex application, as a barn which had previously existed on this site had previously benefited from a ‘prior approval’ in 2016, the planning permission for this ran out in April 2019. He noted that the barn had been demolished, and thus the ‘prior approval’ could not have been implemented anyway. The development has taken place to erect a new dwelling of the same dimensions as the barn. He noted the dwelling was in a rural location, and not sustainable as it is only accessible by car. He also noted that the dwelling does not fulfil criteria for exceptional design. He told the Committee that planning officers would not normally approve an application for a new dwelling which is unsustainable in rural locations. He reminded the Committee that they cannot look negatively on this application because it is retrospective and explained that the recommendation to refuse retrospective planning permission includes action to take enforcement.

Mrs Blake, Mr Blake, and Councillor Colin Trumble as a Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application. Councillor Trumble explained that this was an honest mistake in that the applicants did not fully understand the limits of their planning permission and that as the Parish Council and neighbours had no objections, alongside the fact the dwelling was built to the specifications of the originally approved conversion this recommendation should be overturned in favour of the applicants. He requested that if permission is refused the decision on enforcement action be delegated to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and told Members that while the speakers had been compelling, the District Plan is in place, and if Members were to overturn the planning officers recommendations this would act against the District Plan and they would need to have strong reasoning for this, so as not to set a precedent.

The Vice Chairman felt that this case appeared to be a genuine mistake and that the Committee should work carefully to resolve this case in a sensitive manner because of the potential financial implications for the applicants.

A Member reminded the Committee that it was required to work within the bounds of legislation, the District Plan, and use only planning related considerations in making a decision. In his opinion there was no planning related reason to overturn the Officer’s recommendation. He did note that this was unfortunate, but that to overturn the recommendation would set a precedent and would go against the District Plan.

A Member noted that the Parish Council had recommended that the planning permission be granted, and enquired as to their reasons. Andrew Clarke, Senior Planning Officer, explained that the Parish Council did not offer further comment and the District Council had no requirement to seek further comment from them.

A Member stated that he could not see any valid reason to go against the officers’ recommendation.

A Member asked if it would be possible remove the enforcement action from the resolution if the Committee were to refuse the application. Andrew Clarke, Senior Planning Officer, replied that if the application were refused, the unauthorised development would be considered contrary to the policies of the development plan and therefore in line with the Council’s own Enforcement Charter and government guidance, enforcement action would be considered expedient.

Another Member queried whether the refusal was recommended due to the time scales, or the fact the dwelling was a new build instead of a conversion. Nick Rogers The Business Unit Leader for Development Management and Andrew Clarke, Senior Planning Officer, advised the Committee that the planning permission originally granted was a central Government scheme at the time, which meant that the Council could only consider certain elements of how the barn would be converted in accordance with the permitted development rights, not the principle.

It was further explained that the permission had lapsed because the development was not completed within the stated timescales, conditions were not discharged and that the barn had been demolished rather than converted.

The Vice Chairman confirmed that it is open to the applicants to appeal any decision to refuse permission.

After the debate the Chairman took Members to the recommendation to refuse the application, which was proposed by Cllr McNaughton and seconded by Councillor Walker. The application was refused with 6 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the planning permission be refused and enforcement action be authorised for the reason outlined in Appendix A.