Proposed removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DCNC2004/2013/F (Conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to allow fodder store to be used as a dwelling.

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

(Proposed removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DCNC2004/2013/F (Conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to all fodder store to be used as a dwelling.)

The Case Officer 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.

He noted that determination of the application had been deferred by the Committee on 21 January and an updated report had been prepared.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Williams, Chairman of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Woods, owner of The Old Rectory, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor GR Swinford, spoke on the application.

He gave a detailed analysis of the issues, referring to a Counsel’s opinion submitted by Mr R Humphreys QC on behalf of the owner of The Old Rectory.

He noted that the Fodder Store had been incorporated into the Old Rectory when the rectory was built in 1770.  For the next 234 years the building had been a residential annex and had only been a holiday let for 9 years.

 In summary he advanced the following principal policy grounds for refusing the application:

·         The application was contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, which prohibited development in the open Countryside.  Another constituent had recently received pre-application advice relating to a proposed new dwelling ¼ of a mile from the centre of Whitbourne village that the location was unsustainable being in open countryside.  Consistency in determining planning applications was important.

·         He highlighted the concerns of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) in relation to works that had been carried out without Listed Building Consent.  He suggested that whatever decision the Committee reached enforcement action would have to be taken which could potentially mean a new dwelling being created with no amenity space, no heating system and no access to its own cellar.

·         The application was contrary to policies H17 and H18 which stated that there had to be, a satisfactory standard of accommodation including layout and private amenity space.  In 2010 when permission had been given for change of use of the annex from holiday let to residential use the decision notice had stated that it would be contrary to policy H18 to grant planning permission for a new dwelling in that location.

·         The proposal was contrary to policies HBA3 and HBA4 because it would adversely affect the setting of the Old Rectory and severely affect the residential amenity of its occupiers.

·         The residential annex permissions in 2010 and 2013 had been implemented. The Committee could not therefore remove condition 4 of the 2004 holiday let permission because that permission had been superseded.

In conclusion he requested that the Committee refuse the application and expressed the hope that the owners of the Old Rectory and the Fodder Store could reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.

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

·         The Parish Council had submitted a strong objection as had the local ward member.

·         There were two separate ownerships. The Fodder store was being used as a separate dwelling for holiday let use.  It was unclear what difference approval of the application would make.

·         Whilst not an ideal situation the Fodder Store did not significantly overlook the Old Rectory.

·         The Conservation Manager had identified a number of concerns in relation to works undertaken without listed building consent.  These should be rectified and a new application submitted once the required consents had been secured.

·         The Fodder Store was far too small to be used as an independent dwelling on a permanent basis.

·         The questions of listed building consent and enforcement action should be considered separately from the application before the Committee.

·         The Case Officer commented that there was no reason why the Committee could not determine the application.  There was no legal provision specifying that a dwelling should be above a certain minimum size.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated the policy grounds for refusal that he had advanced.

The Development Manager commented that policy H7 did permit development outside a settlement if it resulted from the re-use of a rural building in accordance with policies HBA12 and HBA13.  In addition the scheme was for the conversion of an existing dwelling not the creation of a new dwelling.  He identified that policies H17 and H18 were relevant.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

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 would result in: inadequate private open amenity space and which would an adverse impact on the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the attached neighbouring property.