Variation of condition to convert cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage. Remove condition 4. 

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Variation of condition to convert cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage.  Remove condition 4.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs M Williams of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr P Wood, owner of the Olde Rectory, spoke in objection.  Mrs G Poultney, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor NE Shaw, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        Nothing on site had changed since the Committee had rejected the previous application.  The Committee had previously concluded that there would be inadequate private external space and that the proposed dwelling would adversely affect the privacy and amenity of those occupying the Olde Rectory.

·        He expressed concern that no site visit has been offered to new members of the Committee; because the issues of privacy and amenity were subjective matters.

·        He questioned some of the assumptions made in the report.

·        The amenity area for the Fodder Store, currently enclosed by a wooden open lattice screen, was in the front of the property and open to the view of the neighbouring properties and their jointly used access. This was not private.  The report only stated that the size of the area was commensurate with the property.  He observed that the area did not appear on any plans.

·        He drew attention to the presence of an open lattice trellis shielding the aspect of the medieval wall of the fodder store and a large green oil tank occupying part of the area which he considered the committee might object to, being so close to an historical structure. He considered these matters were material, incongruent with the setting and should in themselves be reasons for refusal under policy H14, “ in respect of the character and appearance of its location”.

·        Page 101of the agenda papers listed items that must be considered in the change of use of a listed building.  Of these the second point was key: “The proposed use is compatible with the preservation of the existing building, its features and setting and where relevant those of any immediately adjacent listed buildings”.  The effect of the change of use on the setting was material, contrary to the report.

·        In respect of privacy, both windows from the lounge and the bedroom of the Fodder Store overlooked the front garden of the Olde Rectory, and the bathroom window overlooked the more private rear garden.  The Olde Rectory occupants therefore suffered a loss of privacy from these outlooks – presumably enough to justify refusal if this was a fresh application for a new dwelling, possibly of less weight in considering a change of use. 

·        The change of use would increase the loss of privacy.  A property limited to holiday accommodation was likely to be significantly less intrusive in terms of noise and privacy than one that was permanently occupied.

·        He considered that greater weight should be given to the issue of privacy than was given in the report.

·        He outlined a number of concerns relating to fire control measures and the safety of the Fodder Store as a dwelling.

·        In conclusion, he supported the Parish Council’s view, particularly in relation to the issues concerning amenity and privacy and the application of policies H14, H17 and H18, particularly point 4 of H18 which stated that a proposal would be permitted “where a proposal would not be cramped on its plot, including having regard to provision of suitable private open amenity space, and would not adversely impact on the privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring residential property.”  Accordingly he asked the Committee to reject the application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        One view was that having someone permanently resident would be preferable to a variety of holidaying visitors. The contrary view was also expressed.

·        The Parish Council had objected to the proposal.

·        The situation had not changed significantly since the Committee’s previous consideration of the matter and the grounds on which the Committee had refused planning permission then remained valid.

·        The Development Manager commented that the resolution of issues relating to alterations to the Fodder Store and the need for listed building consent did not significantly impact upon the use of the building as a dwelling and need not be an impediment to the determination of the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He suggested that if Members were unsure about whether to support the officer recommendation the Committee should adhere to its previous decision.  He noted that the objectors had no rights of appeal and the applicants had lodged an appeal against the Committee’s previous decision.

A motion that planning permission be granted was lost.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds advanced for refusal by the Committee on 4 March 2015: the proposal is contrary to Policies H17 and H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan in that there is inadequate open amenity space available for the property and it would have an adverse impact upon the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of The Olde Rectory.