A retrospective planning application for two  small outhouses, changes to the entrance on to the public road, the inclusion of a wood burning stove, the erection of fences outside the development area and the resultant increase in the curtilage.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(A retrospective planning application for two small outhouses, changes to the entrance on to the public road, the inclusion of a wood burning stove, the erection of fences outside the development area and the resultant increase in the curtilage.)

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, R Bradbury representing the Campaign to Protect Rural England, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        Planning permission had been granted in 2005 for a barn conversion in what was a very rural setting of great landscape value.  This had been subject to a number of conditions including the removal of permitted development rights.  She outlined the history of the site which had involved a number of breaches of those conditions.

·        A retrospective application similar to that before the Committee had been refused by officers in February 2016.  Subsequently there had been attempts at enforcement that had gone awry.  Now a further retrospective application had been submitted.  Border Group Parish Council opposed the application.

·        In summary she considered that the applicant had ignored the conditions attached to the original application designed to protect the landscape and this was unacceptable.

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

·        Some support was expressed for the view set out at paragraph 6.14 of the report that on balance the application could be recommended for approval, retaining control of additional development through a condition restricting permitted development rights.

·        Several members took the view that as a matter of principle the conditions should be enforced.  The original application had been for a barn conversion.  Such applications had been permitted as exceptions with the aim of preserving heritage assets.  The purpose of the conditions had been intended to guard against development that would undermine this aim which some of the development which had taken place contrary to those conditions did.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee had to consider the application before it and could not accept some aspects of the development that had taken place and not others.  It also had to be determined on the basis of the policies currently in force.  The applicant had removed the greenhouse and the summerhouse from the application.  Enforcement action was taken by the council but resources did constrain what was practicable, mindful of the County’s rurality.  He confirmed that Parish Councils were requested to inform the authority of any enforcement issues that came to their notice.  He also advised in response to concerns expressed about the fence that had been erected on the property that if the application was refused at appeal the fence would only be reduced by 8 centimetres, the extent to which it exceeded the permitted development limit of 2m.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

The Legal officer reminded the members that the legislation allowed them to deal with retrospective applications and that the application should be considered  in the light of  the current policies and as it was put forward in the application

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SD1, LD1, LD4 and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her concern that conditions had not been enforced and that approving the application would condone those breaches and imply that resisting enforcement would in the end be successful.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was contrary to policies SD1, LD1, LD4 and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework.