Retention of existing mobile home (with temporary use for 2 years) as accommodation ancillary to occupation of dwellings permitted by approvals DMS/113120/F & DMS/113121/L.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Inston, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application related solely to the retention of one mobile home on the site, all other matter were now resolved.

·         The mobile home had been refused planning permission in 2008.

·         MrDinsdale did not own the site when the permission had been refused.

·         The removal of the mobile home was the final piece of enforcement action required as part of the Planning Inspector’s decision.

·         The Planning Inspector had recognised the importance of the Orchard in making her decision.

·         The retention of the mobile home would have an impact on the orchard and the biodiversity on the site.

·         The proposed location of the mobile home was a concern.

·         Work had already been commenced on the site.

·         The Inspector’s decision should be binding on the Council and should be enforced.

·         There was no objection to a mobile home on the site as long as it was located outside of the enforcement area.

·         The application should be refused and enforcement action should be commenced.

The Committee opened the debate by discussing the enforcement notice in respect of the mobile home on the site. It was noted that the enforcement notice issued in September 2011 was yet to be complied with. Members voiced their concerns that the proposed two year permission could result in further enforcement issue on the site. Therefore it was proposed that the application be refused and the officers ensure that the enforcement notice on the site was complied with.

Members continued to discuss the application and felt that there was no proven functional need for the mobile home on the site. It was further noted that a single mobile home would not provide sufficient housing for all of the workers on the site due to the extensive works required.

The Committee did note that the applicant was not responsible for the unauthorised development on the site, however he was aware of the enforcement issues when he purchased the land.

Members continues to discuss the application and noted that the site visit undertaken the previous day had highlighted that the mobile home could be seen from the public highway as well as from the garden of a neighbouring resident. It was also considered that the proposed site was not appropriate due to the ecological issues previously raised by the local ward member.

Members noted that the Planning Inspector had made a decision in respect of the site and that this decision should be complied with and enforced by the Council.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised Members that their decision should not be based on the previous enforcement history of the site. He did however note that the Committee had raised issues relating to the lack of a functional need for the mobile home; the potential impact on the habitat of protected species’; and visual impact as the mobile home was visible from the public footpath.

In response to a question regarding the enforcement notice, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised the Committee that the enforcement notice related to a number of additional caravans, some of which were within the orchard itself. He added that the mobile home being considered today was sited on hardstanding and therefore the Committee were considering a different issue to the one determined by the Inspector. He added that the lack of a functional need together with the associated visual impact would be defendable however refusal on the grounds of the impact upon biodiversity would not.

One Member of the Committee also noted that he considered the application to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy H7 as the development would result in housing within the open countryside.

Councillor Durkin was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The Committee were right not to base their decision on the previous enforcement history of the site.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         There is a lack of a functional need for the mobile home

2.         On grounds of visual impact as the mobile home is visible from the public footpath.