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

(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.)

(Councillors Lloyd-Hayes and Norman had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Hardwick fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

It was noted that the application had been considered by the Committee on 25 July 2018 when the Committee had declined to determine it.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Lloyd, of Dormington and Mordiford Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr A Allen, 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 applicant had a history of ignoring planning law requirements over some 10 years by making alterations to the annex, resulting in the current situation.

·        The local community had not objected retrospectively to the initial conversion to an annex, without planning permission, because of sympathy for the applicant’s unfortunate personal circumstances.  However, the current additional development had represented a step too far. 

·        The parking and delivery arrangements had caused problems over the past 2 years. Even though the report suggested that the proposed solution to the parking issues would be effective the evidence of the past two years proved that it would be unsustainable and unworkable. He noted that 21A had been vacant in recent months masking the extent of the problems.

·        He considered the application should be refused.  The proposal was detrimental to neighbouring residents and contrary to policy SD1.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application there was consensus that the application would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents.  Some delivery vehicles had also had to reverse onto the highway because of lack of turning space. An alternative was to reverse in but this was also dangerous. The proposal should therefore be refused on the grounds it was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF.

The Lead Development Manager indicated that he considered determination of the application to be the right course and that the grounds for refusal were sound.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and paragraph 124 of the NPPF.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies SD1 and MT1 and paragraph 124 of the NPPF.