Retention of residential use of former converted carport for ancillary accommodation and retention of the non-material conversion works required to be reversed by enforcement notice EN2017/002562/ZZ.  

The Committee declined to determine the application.

(Retention of residential use of former converted carport for ancillary accommodation and retention of the non-material conversion works required to be reversed by enforcement notice EN2017/002562/ZZ.)

(Councillor Hardwick fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Planning Enforcement Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Lloyd, of Dormington and Mordiford Parish Council spoke in opposition to the proposal.  Mr V Heeley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr E Wilson, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was retrospective.  He noted that the only planning application on the council website relating to the property was for the provision of 3 new roadside windows to the partially converted barns.  The application had been refused.  However, the windows had still been subsequently put in.  Later the roadside barn had been converted into an annex to provide accommodation for a housekeeper.  No planning application had been made but the development had subsequently been allowed by default.  The local community had been sympathetic because of the applicant’s personal circumstances. However, the current additional development, again without planning permission, was not welcome.

·        The unauthorised development was before the Committee following the submission of a planning application made after an enforcement notice had been issued.  That notice was currently held in abeyance.

·        Evidence recorded over the past two years showed the obstruction and inconvenience neighbours had suffered as a result of the overdevelopment.  If the development were permitted he considered the suggested parking arrangements would be almost impossible to enforce.

·        He considered that the Committee could decide that the arrangement was contrary to policy SD1 because the proposed parking arrangements would be likely to mean vehicles manoeuvring across the shared driveway with a frequency that would be out of keeping and detrimental to the amenity of the existing occupiers.  However, given the history of non-compliance with planning requirements another option was to decline to determine the application under section 70 c of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and allow enforcement action to take its course.

The legal adviser to the Committee commented that the Committee could approve the application, refuse it or decline to determine it under 70 c of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).  If the Committee chose to determine the application and refused it, the applicant would have a right to appeal to the Secretary of State.  If the Committee declined to determine the application there would be no right of appeal and the existing enforcement would have to be complied with.  The only way to challenge that decision would be through a judicial review.  On the available information she did not consider that there were grounds for a judicial review using section 70c of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended).

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that if the Committee declined to determine the application enforcement action would then be taken in compliance with the current enforcement notice, the contents of which he outlined.  There were no permitted development rights.  It was clear that the Committee wanted enforcement action to proceed swiftly.  To provide reassurance on this point, the Chairperson and local ward member would be kept informed of progress.  In response to a question he commented that a recommendation for approval had been made on the basis that a parking scheme had been submitted that was acceptable to the Transportation Manager.

An observation was made that the situation involved a number of civil issues that were not material planning considerations.  To determine the application would have a bearing on those non-material issues.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Greenow seconded a motion that the Committee should decline to determine the application.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That the Committee decline to determine the application.