Agenda item

External alterations to residential dwelling approved under prior approval S19/1198/P3Q.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 – EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

The Appendices for this item contain exempt information by virtue of Paragraphs 1 & 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 and a resolution may be passed to exclude the public during consideration of this item.

The Chair reminded members that if they wished to discuss the detail of the exempt information that he would propose going into exempt session and that unless and until this was done the contents of the appendix were not to be discussed in open session.  

The Planning Officer introduced the report, and showed the Committee two videos of the front and back of the site. He then went on to show the designs for the previous barns on the site compared to what had been built, the land owned by the applicant and the plans for the surrounding garden areas. Design concerns had been raised with regards the rear windows which were sporadically placed and can be seen from a nearby footpath. He informed the Committee that the site was in the open countryside and that the building was larger than the original barn and therefore the development contradicted Local Plan Policy CP15. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the applicant had highlighted the children’s welfare with regards to the Human Rights Act and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child. He informed the committee that these rights should be a primary consideration although they should be balanced against the Local Plan aims and policies.

The Head of Development Management explained that the barn had been erected and had been occupied however the Committee was only being asked to consider the planning merits of the proposal as it stands. The Committee were not to consider enforcement action or any actions following this. It was confirmed that any enforcement action would be decided upon at a later date should the outcome warrant it and would come back to Committee to be addressed.

Councillor Craig spoke as a Ward Member in support of the application. He informed the Committee that he had attended the site and it had been well built and created a positive influence on the area. He explained that he had sat in on a meeting of the Hamfallow Parish Council who expressed similar opinions regarding the dwelling. Councillor Craig expressed an awareness of the compliance issues surrounding the build and stated there were lessons to be learned from it.

Councillor Green spoke as a Ward Member in support of the application. She agreed it was a well-built property with no privacy issues and it was well hidden from the road. She commended the property on its beauty and standard of build and expressed large concerns over the impact on the family should this application be refused.

Steph Warren, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. She explained they had purchased the barn with the planning approval already in place. She informed the Committee that they had hired a chartered surveyor to measure the site and create the drawings. The new build had the original steels from the previous barn however mistakenly, the inner steels were not built to. She informed the committee that there was no restrictive head height shown anywhere on the drawings and to lower that by 1 metre would render the second storey uninhabitable. She explained the changes they had made to the windows believing this was available for them to change. She informed the Committee that they had permission for a dwelling at the location and the design they had built received support from the Parish Council, immediate neighbours and members of the local community. She explained that theoretically they could strip the building back and re-create it to the original plans however this wouldn’t be achievable for them as they had put everything into the initial build and would be financially devastating to their family.

John Rooney, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. He informed the committee that the dwelling was supported by Policy 1 of the NPPF which supports sustainable development. The build of this property used the materials from the previous barn which meant it was a sustainable development. He also informed the committee that an ecologist had supported that there was a biodiversity net gain from this application and confirmed there were already 8 houses in the surrounding area. He asked the Committee to approve the application in accordance with Policy 1 of the NPPF.

Councillor Patrick questioned if the property had been built and retrospective planning permission sought, would the Officer recommendation still have been to refuse. The Head of Development Management stated that permitted development had to meet certain criteria and this development had gone beyond the existing structure which is why it was treated as a new build.

Councillor Ryder questioned whether there was ongoing contact from 2019 during the build of the dwelling to which the Planning Officer confirmed there had been no contact and there were no requirements to check on the build during development.

Councillor Ryder further questioned the issue with the habitable rooms upstairs and whether this could have been seen from the plans which was answered by the Planning Officer who stated that plans submitted on approval did state “do not scale”, but the plans had scale to page size on them so could be correctly scaled.

Councillor Jones Proposed, Councillor Ryder Seconded the Officers recommendation for refusal.

Members debated the issue at length which included the following concerns:

·       The message approving this application would send out.

·       The process is in place for a reason and should be followed.

·       The impact of refusal on the family.

·       The area surrounding the build (open countryside).

·       The Local Plan Policies it contradicts.

The Head of Development Management assisted the Committee with their concerns of pre-determination should the application be refused and then come back to Committee, in particular as regards enforcement.

The Chief Planning Lawyer also confirmed to the Committee that the circumstances of the case could be considered as material considerations as well as consideration as regards the imposition of conditions on the development, which could affect their decision and that the decision was not necessarily clear cut.

The Members continued to generally debate the issue of the impact this application held on the family and spoke of how the application contradicted the Local Plan.

After being put to a vote, the Motion carried with 5 votes in support and 3 votes against.

RESOLVED To REFUSE permission for application S.21/1713/FUL.